Second Amendment
In challenge by Olympian, 9th Circuit strikes down law requiring background checks to buy ammunition
A California law requiring background checks to buy ammunition violates the Second Amendment, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled last week in a 2-1 decision. (Image from Shutterstock)
A California law requiring background checks to buy ammunition violates the Second Amendment, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals at San Francisco ruled last week in a 2-1 decision.
The appeals court affirmed a permanent injunction barring enforcement in a July 24 decision by 9th Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta. She is an appointee of former President George W. Bush, as is 9th Circuit Judge Jay S. Bybee, the dissenting judge.
The lead plaintiff in the case is Kim Rhode, who has won Olympic medals for trap and skeet shooting. The California Rifle & Pistol Association is also one of the plaintiffs.
The California law is unconstitutional on its face, Ikuta said, because it is not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, a constitutional requirement under the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
Former Olympian Kim Rhode poses for a photograph before the women’s 10-meter air rifle at the Asaka Shooting Range in the 2020 Summer Olympics in July 2021 in Tokyo. (Photo by Alex Brandon/The Associated Press)
The majority said California’s cited historical examples were not “relevantly similar” to California’s ammunition background checks or did not happen in the relevant time frame.
Examples cited by California included loyalist disarmament provisions, concealed-carry permitting requirements, surety laws imposed on potentially dangerous people, and licensing requirements for gunpowder and firearms vendors.
The majority reached the historical question after holding that the law implicates the plain text of the Second Amendment under the first prong of the two-step Bruen analysis.
In his dissent, Bybee said the majority “effectively abrogates Bruen’s first step” in a “boundless interpretation of the Second Amendment.”
“California’s law—which, on its face, imposes no delay, and a mere one-dollar fee—is not the kind of heavy-handed regulation that meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms,” he wrote.
Reuters and Law.com have coverage of the decision, Rhode v. Bonta.
See also:
ABA supports universal background checks, other proposals to curb gun violence, lawmakers told
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
