{"id":158272,"date":"2025-07-25T11:55:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-25T11:55:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/california-appeals-court-blocks-background-checks-for-ammunition-buyers-the-guardian\/"},"modified":"2025-07-25T11:55:00","modified_gmt":"2025-07-25T11:55:00","slug":"california-appeals-court-blocks-background-checks-for-ammunition-buyers-the-guardian","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/california-appeals-court-blocks-background-checks-for-ammunition-buyers-the-guardian\/","title":{"rendered":"California: appeals court blocks background checks for ammunition buyers – The Guardian"},"content":{"rendered":"

California gun owners hail \u2018huge win\u2019 after appeals court, in 2-1 vote, finds first-of-its-kind law is unconstitutional
A federal appeals court has ruled that California\u2019s<\/a> first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional.
In a 2-1 vote on Thursday, the ninth US circuit court of appeals in Pasadena upheld a lower court judge\u2019s permanent injunction against enforcing the law.
Circuit judge Sandra Ikuta said the law \u201cmeaningfully constrains\u201d people\u2019s right to keep and bear arms, and that California<\/a> failed to show that the law was consistent with the US historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required under the supreme court\u2019s 2022 Bruen decision.
Thursday\u2019s ruling was a defeat for the gun control movement, albeit one that did not come as a surprise. Gun control and violence prevention advocates had decried the supreme court\u2019s 2022 decision<\/a>, and argued that the historical twin test would lead to the rolling back of hard-won regulations that they say have been vital in reducing death and injury from gun violence.
Since the ruling, there have been more than 2,000 gun law challenges, and lower courts continue to sort through the new parameters the ruling has produced. Most of the cases were brought by people who were looking to have their gun case convictions overturned, according to the Trace.<\/a> The others have been civil lawsuits brought by gun rights groups.
The office of Rob Bonta, California\u2019s attorney general, which defended the law, said it was disappointed by the decision.
\u201cOur families, schools and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,\u201d a spokesperson said.
Voters had in 2016 approved a California ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition, and pay $50 for a four-year ammunition permit.
Legislators amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. The background check scheme took effect in 2019.
The case against the law was brought by Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA). Many gun rights groups and 24 mostly Republican-led US states submitted briefs supporting the law\u2019s opponents.
The CRPA described the ruling as a \u201chuge win\u201d for California gun owners.
It said: \u201cToday\u2019s ruling is what plaintiffs \u2026 and many in the 2A community, like the National Rifle Association, who supported the many appeals in this case, have been waiting almost a decade to receive.\u201d
In a joint statement, the association\u2019s president and general counsel, Chuck Michel, called the decision a victory against \u201coverreaching government gun control\u201d, while Rhode called it \u201ca big win for all gun owners in California\u201d.
California was backed by several safety groups. \u201cBackground checks for ammunition sales are common sense,\u201d said Janet Carter, managing director of second amendment litigation at Everytown Law.
Last year, nearly 200 people who were on California\u2019s list of people who owned guns but later became prohibited from possessing them were denied from buying ammunition through this background check system, according to the California justice department\u2019s 2024 Armed and Prohibited Persons System Report<\/a>.
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee, a George W Bush appointee, argued that in most cases, the state\u2019s ammunition background check process \u201ccosts one dollar and imposes less than one minute of delay\u201d. <\/p>\n

The law \u201cis not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms\u201d, Bybee wrote.
He further argued the majority opinion was flawed and contorted the precedent set by the Bruen decision \u201cbeyond recognition\u201d. Thursday\u2019s ruling, he argued, in effect declares unlawful any limits on ammunition sales, given the unlikelihood a state can point to identical historical analogues.<\/p>\n

source<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

California gun owners hail \u2018huge win\u2019 after appeals court, in 2-1 vote, finds first-of-its-kind law is unconstitutional A federal appeals court has ruled that California\u2019s first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional.In a 2-1 vote on Thursday, the ninth US circuit court of appeals in Pasadena upheld a […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":158273,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-158272","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-us","entry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158272","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=158272"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/158272\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/158273"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=158272"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=158272"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/quixnet.net\/wpinstance\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=158272"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}