The court ruled that the law regulates activity protected by the Second Amendment because ammunition is necessary for the use of firearms.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled July 24 that a California law requiring background checks to buy ammunition violated the Second Amendment.
A three-judge panel ruled 2–1 that the background check requirement failed to meet the standard set by the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
According to Bruen, a law must comply with the plain language of the Constitution and be analogous to laws at the time the Second Amendment was ratified.
Appeals Court Judges Sandra S. Ikuta and Bridget S. Bade upheld a permanent injunction issued by District Court Judge Roger T. Benetiz of the Southern District Court of California in 2020.
Judge Jay S. Bybee dissented.
The court ruled that the law regulates activity protected by the text of the Second Amendment because ammunition is necessary for the use of firearms.
“California’s ammunition background check regime implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment because the regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms,” Ikuta wrote.
The court also held that “the government failed to carry its burden of showing that California’s ammunition background check regime is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
While the Supreme Court stated in Bruen that some regulation in shall-issue carry regimes may be constitutional, the Ninth Circuit ruled that this did not cover ammunition purchases.
The Appeals Court ruled that ammunition purchases are distinct from concealed carry permits for firearms. The court stated that the California law was especially burdensome because it required a background check for each ammunition purchase, regardless of when the last purchase was made.
“Because California’s ammunition background check regime violates the Second Amendment, the panel held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction,” the ruling reads.
