A Federal Appeals Court Just Blew Up One of This State’s Most Disgusting Gun Laws

Here’s another development that will make gun owners thank the Almighty for the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday sent California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases to legislative Hades where it belongs. The court ruled 2-1 that the law violated the Second Amendment because it did not pass the Bruen test.

The majority held that mandating background checks on people who want to purchase ammunition placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority opninion, argued that “By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

The Second Amendment protects ammunition purchases as an integral part of armed self-defense, the court ruled. “Without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless.” The court further noted that the Golden State “has not carried its burden to identify a well-established and representative historical analogue.”

In English, this means California’s law does not align with gun restrictions passed during the Founding era, as required by the Bruen decision. This is because there were no laws requiring background checks just to purchase ammunition when the Founding Fathers designed our system of government.

Ikuta affirmed this when she wrote, “We are aware of no founding era law that required individuals to undergo a background check in order to purchase ammunition.” She acknowledged that there were some historical laws that regulated gunpowder storage for fire safety, “these laws are not analogous to California’s regime, which operates as a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutional right.”

California voters approved a ballot initiative in July 2019 mandating that those who wish to purchase ammunition go through a background check. The law was ostensibly aimed at preventing people with criminal records, restraining orders, or who have been determined to pose a danger to themselves or others from obtaining ammunition.

Judge Milan D. Smith authored the dissenting opinion in the case. He argued that the majority opinion went too far in applying the Bruen test. The judge believes the law was reasonably grounded in America’s historical tradition of gun regulation and insisted “the Second Amendment is not a regulatory straightjacket.”

“The absence of identical regulations in the 18th century does not mean that modern governments are powerless to address modern threats,” he wrote.

Oh, but it does, Judge Smith. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you’re feeling raw about it. In fact, the biggest “modern threat” to liberty is a government seeking to disarm the public.

The law faced a slew of legal challenges. US District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the law in 2024. But his ruling was stayed on appeal.

But now, the law has met a painful and well-deserved death at the hands of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a reason to celebrate.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.

Here’s another development that will make gun owners thank the Almighty for the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday sent California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases to legislative Hades where it belongs. The court ruled 2-1 that the law violated the Second Amendment because it did not pass the Bruen test.

The majority held that mandating background checks on people who want to purchase ammunition placed an unconstitutional burden on the right to keep and bear arms. Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority opninion, argued that “By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

The Second Amendment protects ammunition purchases as an integral part of armed self-defense, the court ruled. “Without bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless.” The court further noted that the Golden State “has not carried its burden to identify a well-established and representative historical analogue.”

In English, this means California’s law does not align with gun restrictions passed during the Founding era, as required by the Bruen decision. This is because there were no laws requiring background checks just to purchase ammunition when the Founding Fathers designed our system of government.

Ikuta affirmed this when she wrote, “We are aware of no founding era law that required individuals to undergo a background check in order to purchase ammunition.” She acknowledged that there were some historical laws that regulated gunpowder storage for fire safety, “these laws are not analogous to California’s regime, which operates as a prior restraint on the exercise of a constitutional right.”

California voters approved a ballot initiative in July 2019 mandating that those who wish to purchase ammunition go through a background check. The law was ostensibly aimed at preventing people with criminal records, restraining orders, or who have been determined to pose a danger to themselves or others from obtaining ammunition.

Judge Milan D. Smith authored the dissenting opinion in the case. He argued that the majority opinion went too far in applying the Bruen test. The judge believes the law was reasonably grounded in America’s historical tradition of gun regulation and insisted “the Second Amendment is not a regulatory straightjacket.”

“The absence of identical regulations in the 18th century does not mean that modern governments are powerless to address modern threats,” he wrote.

Oh, but it does, Judge Smith. Take it up with the Supreme Court if you’re feeling raw about it. In fact, the biggest “modern threat” to liberty is a government seeking to disarm the public.

The law faced a slew of legal challenges. US District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the law in 2024. But his ruling was stayed on appeal.

But now, the law has met a painful and well-deserved death at the hands of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a reason to celebrate.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.