The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional, affirming a prior decision made by a San Diego federal judge that nullified the statute.
This ruling stems from a lawsuit filed in San Diego by a coalition of gun owners and rights organizations, which contended that the law violated the Second Amendment rights of California residents.
In contrast, the California Attorney General’s Office defended the law as a necessary safety measure designed to prevent individuals who should not possess firearms from obtaining ammunition.
Previously, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the law on two occasions, a reflection of his consistent rulings favoring firearm advocates in their quest to overturn various state regulations regarding gun and ammunition ownership and sales.
The recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit upholds Judge Benitez’s permanent injunction against the background check requirement.
In the majority opinion, Judge Sandra Ikuta stated that California’s background check law is inconsistent with the nation’s historical traditions surrounding firearm regulation.
This conclusion aligns with a significant 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision, which asserted that firearm-related cases should be assessed based on historical precedents.
Ikuta emphasized that imposing background checks for ammunition purchases infringes upon the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Dissenting in the ruling, Judge Jay S. Bybee argued that the background check law does not impose an unreasonable constraint on the right to keep and bear arms, unlike a complete prohibition might.
Bybee pointed out that most of California’s background checks cost merely a dollar and result in delays of under a minute for consumers.
Following the ruling, Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association and a plaintiff in the lawsuit, celebrated the decision as a significant victory.
He expressed optimism that the state would likely pursue an en banc appeal but believed that the law would ultimately be overturned.
Similarly, Olympic medal-winning skeet shooter Kim Rhode, another plaintiff, remarked that this ruling represented a triumph for gun owners in California, emphasizing that the courts have reaffirmed the rights of lawful gun ownership.
Dan Wolgin, CEO of the ammunition supplier Ammunition Depot, which was also a plaintiff, expressed his satisfaction with the ruling, highlighting the decision as a validation of constitutional rights.
He asserted that the ruling sends a clear message that constitutional liberties are non-negotiable.
In response to the ruling, the California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office could not immediately be reached for a comment.
Everytown Law, an organization focused on gun violence prevention, highlighted a California DOJ report indicating that 191 individuals prohibited from firearm ownership were denied ammunition purchases in the previous year due to the background checks.
Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law, stated that Bybee’s dissent and positive discussions regarding background checks by the Supreme Court substantiate that the law is constitutional.
She urged the Ninth Circuit to rehear the case en banc, asserting that background checks for ammunition sales are rooted in common sense and essential for public safety.
image source from：nbcsandiego
