https://slaynews.com/news/fede...ign=daily-newsletter

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, upheld a lower court’s permanent injunction that blocked the state from enforcing the law.

Democrats argue that the law was intended to curb gun violence by regulating ammunition sales.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, stated that the law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms, pointing out that the state failed to prove the law’s alignment with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The decision was based on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized that any gun regulation must be consistent with historical precedents.

“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,” Ikuta wrote in the opinion.

California’s Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom quickly condemned the ruling.

Newsom called the decision a “slap in the face” to efforts to curb gun violence in the state.

He argued that the decision undermines California’s progressive strides to protect citizens from firearms-related harm.

“Strong gun laws save lives – and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said in a statement.

“Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition, and their voices should matter.”

The state’s Attorney General Rob Bonta, also a Democrat, vowed to seek further legal action.

Bonta claims that the decision would undermine protections for Californians.

“Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,” Bonta said.

The controversial law was first approved by California voters in 2016.

It required background checks for all ammunition purchases, along with the issuance of four-year ammunition permits.

Later amendments tightened the requirements, making background checks mandatory for each ammunition transaction.

However, like many of the Democrats’ gun-control measures, the law hurts law-abiding citizens.

Gun rights advocates pushed back against the law, arguing that it unduly restricts citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Plaintiffs in the case included Kim Rhode, a three-time Olympic gold medalist in shooting, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, both of whom celebrated the court’s decision as a victory for gun owners.

“This is a big win for all gun owners in California,” Rhode said in a statement.

“It’s a victory against overreaching government gun control.”

The state can still seek a review of the decision either by a larger panel of judges from the 9th Circuit or by the U.S. Supreme Court.

However, the decision represents a significant setback for California’s efforts to impose stricter gun control measures.

Judge Jay Bybee, who dissented, argued that the law was not overly burdensome and that the majority’s ruling ignored precedent set by previous gun regulations, including historical rules governing firearms and ammunition sales.

The split decision highlights the ongoing tension between gun rights advocates and those seeking tighter controls on firearms in the U.S., and signals that future legal battles over gun regulations in California are far from over.

Good! Now do New York!

As a Californian I celebrate this.

We need every victory we can get.

The result of that law for me anyway was I just bought more cases of ammunition when I was stocking up.

There are many more stupid laws that we have to navigate out here. Too many to list.

The next one I hope gets overturned is the 10% excise tax on all guns and ammunition. With the excise tax it brings it close to 21%…

A victory, but this might be a short one, similar to Freedom Week with magazines. Newsom and other Dems are pissed and this will definitely go en banc review with the 9th Circuit.

https://x.com/CRPAPresident/st.../1948448306948178132

Well. I didn’t see that coming. It has sucked to have to have ammo shipped to an FFL, pay them 40.00 to process the transfer and then the 1.00 DOJ fee. It kind of negates the great on line prices. Or just buy directly from the store and end up paying the same. I’m sure that Newsome and Bonta have a few tricks up their sleeve to quash this ruling.

Before the CA law that would make on-line ammo purchases impractical went into effect I stocked up, big time. Both 9mm and .22 LR. My heirs will have to figure out how to deal with my remaining stock.

And when a window briefly opened that allowed Californians to legally buy (and own) full capacity mags I took advantage of that too.

I’ve received a couple of emails indicating okay to order online. But sg is not available.

Dumb question: can we buy locally with cash now? FFL store or not?

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
…can we buy locally with cash now? FFL store or not?

Wouldn’t it be best to ask your local store directly?

I went ahead and bought a few boxes of .45 defensive ammo for the new P220 I recently bought. It was so nice to have a brief bit of freedom when at checkout they didn’t even question shipping to my home, as opposed to having it go through an FFL like I’ve been doing.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
I’ve received a couple of emails indicating okay to order online. But sg is not available.

Dumb question: can we buy locally with cash now? FFL store or not?

My local gun range/FFL said yay no background checks. I think you’d likely be ok for now. I bought some 9mm and 5.56 from TargetSportsUSA. We already had a “freedom 6 days” on ammo in early 2024 in this case.

HEADS UP, BUYING ONLINE RIGHT NOW AVOIDS THE 11% BS TAX! So probably find better deals online and save 11%

quote:

Originally posted by jer830:
…It has sucked to have to have ammo shipped to an FFL, pay them 40.00 to process the transfer…

Dang my local FFL I use charged $10/1k centerfire, so basically 1 cent per round over online price. That wasn’t too bad IMO VS paying for FFL03 and COE when I wasn’t buying enough to justify. Then added that $1 fee per purchase, that they are/were trying to raise to $5.

Donate to the CRPA if you can.

quote:

Originally posted by Pipe Smoker:
Before the CA law that would make on-line ammo purchases impractical went into effect I stocked up, big time. Both 9mm and .22 LR. My heirs will have to figure out how to deal with my remaining stock.

And when a window briefly opened that allowed Californians to legally buy (and own) full capacity mags I took advantage of that too.

Stevie Wonder could have seen that coming, but these idiot politicians never seem to, despite it having happened dozens of times.

Like others, I stocked up before the law took effect. Have not purchased since (well, until now).

I refuse to give an additional 11% to fucking Sacramento. The law also required the sale be reported to the DOJ detailing personal information, amount and caliber of ammo. It's none of their damn business what ammo I have.

Here's hoping the 9th Circuit doesn't take this for En Banc review.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Stevie Wonder could have seen that coming, but these idiot politicians never seem to, despite it having happened dozens of times.

Pro gun decisions just embolden them. They figure they have nothing to lose and it allows them to make gestures and pander to their anti gun constituents with no down side. If it gets overturned so what, it just makes them look better to the antis. "See, I really tired!"

quote:

Originally posted by stray dog:
…Here's hoping the 9th Circuit doesn't take this for En Banc review.

Sure they will. My money is on en banc overturning the 3 judge decision then we take it to SCOTUS like every other case. Neither side will give up, but if SCOTUS rules in our favor, CA will make up some other bull shit law that will take years and years to fight…again.

quote:

Originally posted by cas:

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:
Stevie Wonder could have seen that coming, but these idiot politicians never seem to, despite it having happened dozens of times.

Pro gun decisions just embolden them. They figure they have nothing to lose and it allows them to make gestures and pander to their anti gun constituents with no down side. If it gets overturned so what, it just makes them look better to the antis. "See, I really tired!"

This is the biggest problem, they can make up any crazy law they want even knowing it’s unconstitutional, but it takes lots of time and money to get it overturned. Then they just make up something else. If there was some sort of consequence for knowingly enacting unconstitutional laws, maybe they wouldn’t.

In my situation, the CA DOJ wanted my FFL number to renew my COE. I’m assuming that they would not have issued my COE without the FFL number? Seems like CA is using just about every trick they can to make it hard to purchase anything associated with a firearm.

I hope this lasts. What I want to buy is not available until about Sept....

Without doubt Rob Bonta, CA AG, will appeal this to get an en banc ruling from the Ninth Circuit. They always drag their feet, even when the outcome is not in doubt.

^^^^^^^

This is shutting down sooner than that. Brownells, Midway and others are changing their minds, and I don't blame them.