Ammo Background Checks Unconstitutional, California Judge Rules

Judge Roger Benitez ruled earlier today that requiring background checks to purchase ammo in California is illegal. It’s a huge win for firearms enthusiasts in the state, who now can enjoy easier access to ammo. It’s also an important event for gun rights nationally, and a blow to the national gun control movement.

The Background

The ruling in question comes from a California legal case called Rhode v Bonta. The story of California requiring background checks for ammo is actually pretty convoluted. In fact, the rule demanding this obstacle didn’t even require background checks to begin with.

California passed a law called Proposition 63 in 2016. This rule requires anyone who wants to buy ammo to apply for a permit. They must present this permit whenever they want to purchase ammunition.

The permit cost $50 and lasted for two years. Certain events could cause the permit holder to lose their ammo privileges as well. Additionally, anyone who wanted to sell ammo needed to be a licensed vendor.

However, after voters had already voted on the permitting system, the California legislature tried to pull a fast one. Instead of establishing a permitting process, they changed the law to require a background check for every ammo transaction in the state. Under the new law, California citizens went through more than one million background checks every year.

The rule effectively made it so that Californians couldn’t buy ammo online and have it shipped to their houses. They also couldn’t buy ammo in places like Arizona or Nevada and bring it back home with them.

Interpretation

The plaintiffs in the case called on the court to invalidate the background check law for three reasons. The first was that it violated the Second Amendment, the second two were violations of interstate commerce laws.

Justice Roger Benitez agreed. It’s actually the second time that Benitez has struck the law down – the first was in 2021. Benitez has also previously ruled California’s assault weapons ban unconstitutional.

To reach the ruling, the courts applied the new test established by New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen in 2022. It’s one of the first cases that uses this new ruling, and sets the stage for other Second Amendment-related rulings in the future.

Final Thoughts

Kim Rhode, an American Olympian and the plaintiff that lent her name to the case, welcomed the announcement. “I’m happy the courts agreed with me,” she said. “Many generations of hunters, outdoorsmen, and Olympians will be able to train and pass on the shooting heritage for many generations.”

“I will never stop fighting for the Second Amendment and what I believe to be right, and the court’s ruling supports that.”

This ruling is also a major win because requiring background checks for ammo effectively made mail-order ammo services illegal in California. That’s seriously messed up, since mail-order ammo is one of the things that makes this country so great. California gun laws seem to spread like a cancer, so it’s great that Benitez is nipping this rule in the bud before it has a chance to make its way to other states.

I’m not only celebrating for gun owners in California, but I’m also breathing a sigh of relief that these kinds of laws will hopefully never affect me.