In a significant decision for gun rights, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s requirement for background checks on ammunition purchases, citing a violation of the 2nd Amendment. This ruling, issued on July 24, 2025, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate over gun control and Second Amendment protections. Here’s what you need to know about the decision, its implications, and the broader context of gun laws in California.
Background on California’s Ammunition Background Check Law
In 2016, California voters approved a ballot measure to strengthen the state’s already stringent gun laws, including a requirement for background checks on all ammunition purchases. The goal was to prevent prohibited individuals—such as felons or those with certain mental health restrictions—from acquiring bullets. According to the California Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms, the program approved 89% of purchases, typically within three minutes, rejected 10% on resolvable technicalities, and blocked less than 1% due to buyer ineligibility.
However, this law faced legal challenges from gun rights advocates who argued it infringed on constitutional protections. The 9th Circuit’s recent ruling has now deemed the background check requirement unconstitutional, effectively halting a key component of California’s gun control framework.
The 9th Circuit’s Ruling: A 2nd Amendment Victory
The 9th Circuit’s decision, led by Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, rested on the argument that the background check law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Ikuta emphasized that the right to operate firearms, which requires access to ammunition, is inherently protected by the Constitution. The court rejected California’s attempt to justify the law by comparing it to Reconstruction-era loyalty oaths, stating that such historical precedents were not analogous to modern, recurring background checks.
This ruling aligns with a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limits state-level gun control measures to those consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The 9th Circuit’s reliance on this precedent underscores a broader judicial trend toward prioritizing Second Amendment rights over state-imposed restrictions.
Dissenting Opinion
Not all judges agreed with the majority. Judge Jay Bybee dissented, arguing that California’s background check system, in place since 2019, was minimally invasive, costing just $1 and causing less than a minute of delay for most buyers. Bybee criticized the majority’s interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as overly broad, warning that it could undermine virtually any regulation on ammunition or firearms. He noted that the 2022 Supreme Court ruling did not explicitly preclude California’s scheme, highlighting a divide in judicial perspectives on gun control.
Implications for California Gun Owners
The immediate impact of the ruling remains unclear, as California officials have not yet announced whether they will appeal. For now, the decision could lift restrictions that have been in place for six years, potentially allowing ammunition purchases without background checks. This change would likely be welcomed by gun rights advocates, such as Dan Wolgin, CEO of Ammunition Depot, who called the ruling “a major step forward for the 2nd Amendment and the rights of every law-abiding citizen.”
However, gun violence prevention groups, like Everytown Law, expressed concern, noting that the law enabled the California Department of Justice to investigate 191 armed and prohibited individuals attempting to buy ammunition in 2024 alone. Critics argue that removing background checks could increase risks to public safety.
The Broader Context: Gun Control in California
California has long been a leader in implementing strict gun control measures, from assault weapon bans to red flag laws. However, recent rulings from both the 9th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court have chipped away at these efforts. Over the past decade, courts have increasingly favored interpretations of the 2nd Amendment that limit state authority to regulate firearms and ammunition. This trend has frustrated advocates of tighter gun laws while emboldening those who prioritize constitutional protections for gun ownership.
What’s Next?
As California weighs its options, including a potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the debate over gun rights and public safety continues to intensify. Gun owners in the state may soon face fewer hurdles when purchasing ammunition, but the long-term effects of this ruling on California’s broader gun control framework remain to be seen.
