What happens when one of America’s strictest gun‑safety laws gets declared unconstitutional?
At stake is the California ammunition background check law, first passed under voter-approved Proposition 63. Designed to curb access to ammo by prohibited individuals, it was struck down in 2024 by federal courts and overturned in 2025 by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the fight continues—and the outcome will shape how states regulate ammunition under the Second Amendment.
The Law that Changed Ammo Purchases
Enacted via Proposition 63 in 2016, California’s law required:
- An initial background check and a $50 permit validated for four years to purchase ammunition.
- After 2019, a background check for every ammunition purchase, costing $1–$19 depending on applicant status.
This first‑in‑the‑nation approach aimed to track ammunition sales, block felons or prohibited individuals, and support law enforcement tracking efforts.
The Legal Battle Begins
🚩 District Court Rejection
In January 2024, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez permanently enjoined enforcement of the law, ruling it unconstitutional. He found the requirements imposed an undue burden on lawful gun owners and lacked historical precedent under the Second Amendment as reaffirmed by Bruen.
Benitez also criticized the law’s implementation: nearly 11% of backlogged applications—about 58,000 in six months—were wrongfully rejected, preventing legal users from accessing ammo for self‑defense.
Ninth Circuit Stay and Strike
California quickly appealed. Initially, the Ninth Circuit issued a temporary stay, keeping the law in place while the appeal advanced.
Then, on July 24, 2025, a 2–1 decision by Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta upheld Benitez’s block, permanently striking down the law. The court held it failed to align with the nation’s firearm regulation traditions and violated the Second Amendment.
Political Fallout and Official Responses
California Governor Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta, both supporters of the law, decried the ruling:
“Strong gun laws save lives … today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made.”
The DOJ stressed that the law had prevented thousands of prohibited individuals from unlawfully purchasing ammunition.
Meanwhile, Chuck Michel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association called the decision a victory for lawful gun owners, arguing that restricting access to ammo infringed on core constitutional rights.
Timeline: How the Law Evolved
2016: Voter passage of Proposition 63, requiring ammo background checks and high-capacity magazine restrictions.
2019: Law amends to require background checks for each ammunition purchase.
January 30, 2024: District Court permanently blocks the law.
Early 2024: Ninth Circuit issues stay, allowing enforcement pending appeal.
July 24, 2025: Ninth Circuit upholds injunction, striking down law statewide.
Why Did the Courts Strike It Down?
No Historical Analog
Under Bruen, gun regulations must align with historical tradition. California could not cite equivalent regulatory practices from early U.S. history limiting ammunition purchases.
Burden on Lawful Owners
The requirement to pass a background check at every purchase—even for law‑abiding citizens with valid permits—was deemed excessive. Benitez emphasized how rejections lacked transparency and hindered ability to exercise self‑defense.
Broader Implications Beyond California
California was the first state to mandate ammunition background checks. Now its legal defeats could reshape gun regulation nationwide:
- Other states may face challenges to similar laws.
- Federal proposals, like Jaime’s Law, could be weakened if no historical precedent exists.
California’s case sets a template whether states can enforce novel restrictions on ammo access without clashing with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
The Ninth Circuit’s Rationale: Constitutional Conflict?
At the heart of the ruling was a core constitutional tension: Does California’s ammunition background check violate the Second Amendment?
According to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, yes. The court concluded that California’s 2016 Proposition 63, which required real-time background checks for every ammo purchase, amounted to a de facto restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. This was especially due to the high error rate of the state’s Automated Firearms System (AFS) — a system that routinely blocked law-abiding citizens from buying ammunition due to mismatches or outdated records.
In the court’s words:
“The law has failed to distinguish between dangerous individuals and ordinary citizens seeking to exercise a constitutional right.”
Pushback: A Clash of Ideologies
Governor Gavin Newsom immediately denounced the ruling as a setback to gun safety:
“The Court’s decision is not only misguided, it is dangerous. California voters demanded stronger protections. We will continue to fight for them.”
Newsom’s office hinted at a likely appeal to the full Ninth Circuit en banc, and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court — setting the stage for another showdown in national gun law jurisprudence.
Are Background Checks Effective for Ammunition?
A major argument from proponents of Prop 63 was that background checks reduce gun violence by cutting off ammunition access to prohibited users.
A 2008 study published in the PMC reviewed states with similar ammo restrictions and found mixed evidence on long-term efficacy. While some cities saw short-term reductions in violent crime, others saw little to no measurable change.
However, critics argued that California’s system wasn’t just ineffective—it was inefficient. The approval process reportedly blocked or delayed over 15% of legitimate purchases due to clerical mismatches or identity errors.
What’s Next for California Gun Laws?
With the ammunition background check provision now struck down, what remains of Proposition 63?
Here’s what still stands:
Ban on large-capacity magazines (currently also under legal challenge)
Mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms
Restrictions on out-of-state ammunition shipments (now partially moot)
The California Department of Justice (DOJ) has indicated it will work with the Attorney General’s office to modify internal databases and improve the AFS, but for now, background checks for ammunition are suspended.
You can view updated state firearm laws directly from the California Attorney General’s Firearms Division.
A National Implication? Why This Matters Beyond California
This decision may not just affect California gun owners — it could shape how other states craft their firearm and ammunition laws.
Currently, no other state requires real-time background checks for ammunition purchases. If California’s model is declared unconstitutional, it sets a legal precedent that could limit how far states can go in regulating ammunition sales.
Legal analysts note that the case may follow the pattern of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against strict concealed carry laws and set a stricter standard for assessing Second Amendment regulations.
The 2025 decision to strike down California’s ammunition background check law isn’t just a local legal adjustment — it reflects a broader national reckoning over how far states can go in regulating gun and ammunition sales without infringing on constitutional rights.
Whether viewed as a blow to public safety or a victory for Second Amendment protections, one thing is clear: the gun law debate in America is far from over.
References
National Institutes of Health. Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Fatalities in the United States.
Governor of California. Governor Newsom Statement on the Ninth Circuit Striking Down One of California’s Pivotal Voter-Approved Gun Safety Laws.
Office of the Attorney General, California. Firearms – California Department of Justice.
- Can States Restrict Ammo Sales? Why the California Ammunition Background Check Law Was Struck Down - July 28, 2025
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.: What He Did, What He Stood For, and Why It Still Matters - July 23, 2025
- Behind the Blueberry Recall: How Class I FDA Alerts Protect Public Health - July 3, 2025