The state of California has been legally allowed to continue its practice of requiring people to undergo background checks to buy ammunition after a divided federal appeals court on Monday put on hold a judge’s ruling that had declared the rule unconstitutional.
In a one-page ruling, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel, on a 2-1 vote, stayed last week’s ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in San Diego, holding that the background checks law violated the right to bear arms protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.
The Democrat-led state had asked the Ninth Circuit to intervene, arguing that Judge Benitez’s ruling was “dangerous.” The judge, a Republican former President George W. Bush appointee, has ruled against other gun control measures in the past.
U.S. Circuit Judges Richard Clifton and Holly Thomas, both appointees of Democrat presidents, issued Monday’s decision in Rhode v. Bonta. U.S. Circuit Judge Consuelo Callahan, another President Bush appointee, dissented, saying the state had failed to show a likelihood of success on appeal or that the ruling would lead to irreparable injury if it were allowed to stand.
“California’s life-saving ammunition laws will remain in effect as we continue to defend them in court,” cheered California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, in a post on the social media platform X when the court’s decision was made.
“We will never stop fighting to protect Californians from the scourge of gun violence,” he added.
Plaintiffs challenging the law in court included Kim Rhode, who has won three Olympic gold medals in shooting events, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA).
“In just a sentence, the Ninth Circuit wiped out the lengthy, well-reasoned ruling issued by Judge Benitez negating the state’s onerous restrictions on ammunition purchases,” the CRPA wrote on its website. “The Second Amendment includes ammo!”
Chuck Michel, the group’s president and general counsel, said in a statement that the CRPA will seek further review by a different court panel and “restore the people’s right to buy the ammunition they need for sport or to defend their families.”
California voters had in 2016 approved a ballot measure—Proposition 63—requiring gun owners to undergo initial background checks to buy ammunition and pay $50 for a four-year ammunition permit.
The measure was amended to require background checks for each ammunition purchase, starting in 2019, for $1 per check for those with a firearm registered and $19 for those without prior gun registration. The fees for a firearm purchase check in the state are approximately $37.
Judge Benitez’s Jan. 30 ruling was the latest court decision declaring a gun restriction unconstitutional following the Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
That ruling recognized for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. It established a new standard for assessing gun control laws, determining that restrictions must be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Judge Benitez in his decision rejected Mr. Bonta’s reliance on 50 centuries-old laws as “historical analogues” for ammunition checks—given that 48 of the listed laws, which date from 1789 to 1868, all revolve around criminalizing the possession of guns and ammunition by slaves, indigenous tribes, and/or persons of color.
“These fifty laws identified by the Attorney General constitute a long, embarrassing, disgusting, insidious, reprehensible list of examples of government tyranny towards our own people,” Judge Benitez wrote in his 32-page ruling.
Reuters contributed to this report.
