California’s Ammo Check Defeated: Major Victory for Gun Rights

Another major blow has just been delivered to the authoritarian gun-control regime in California—and it’s long overdue.

On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that California’s ammunition background check law is unconstitutional. In a 2–1 decision, the court upheld a lower judge’s permanent injunction, effectively striking down a law that should never have existed in the first place. The court’s reasoning wasn’t complicated: the law “meaningfully constrains” the constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and it fails to align with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required under the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.

Let’s call this what it is—a victory for liberty, for common sense, and for every law-abiding gun owner in the Golden State.

For those unfamiliar, California passed a ballot initiative in 2016 requiring background checks for ammunition purchases. Then, in true California fashion, lawmakers twisted that into an even more burdensome process—mandating a background check for every single ammunition purchase. Not just a one-time screening. Every. Single. Box. That’s a bureaucratic nightmare and an obvious attempt to make gun ownership practically impossible.

As Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in the majority opinion, “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.” That’s not just legal speak—that’s the Constitution speaking through the courts.

Predictably, California’s ruling-class Democrats like Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta offered their usual pearl-clutching responses. Newsom called the ruling a “slap in the face” to gun-control advocates and claimed that “strong gun laws save lives.” But here’s the problem, Governor: your laws aren’t saving lives—they’re punishing citizens who play by the rules while doing little to stop violent criminals.

Let’s not forget that the state’s own data shows only 191 “armed and prohibited individuals” were flagged by these ammunition checks in the past year. That’s 191 out of millions of purchases—a statistical rounding error. Meanwhile, thousands of law-abiding citizens were delayed, denied, or deterred from exercising a basic constitutional right. This isn’t public safety. It’s government harassment.

And it’s not just about ammo. This is part of a coordinated campaign by the Left to slow-walk the Second Amendment into irrelevance. First, they go after rifles with cosmetic bans. Then it’s red flag laws that strip due process. Now, it’s ammo background checks—because what good is a gun if you can’t buy bullets?

The Bruen decision from the Supreme Court has become a crucial firewall against this madness. That landmark ruling clarified that gun regulations must align with the historical tradition of firearm laws in this country. If a restriction like an ammo background check didn’t exist at the founding of our Republic—or even in the 19th century—it’s likely unconstitutional. Period. End of story.

California’s desperate attempt to cite colonial-era gunpowder licenses and loyalty oaths from the 1770s is laughable. These aren’t serious historical analogues. They’re flimsy justifications from a state government that sees every armed citizen as a threat to be controlled.

And let’s be clear: this wasn’t a decision by rogue right-wing judges. The panel included judges appointed by both Presidents George W. Bush and Donald Trump. Even in the notoriously liberal Ninth Circuit, the Constitution—when interpreted honestly—still holds power.

This ruling is a shot across the bow of every anti-gun state that thinks it can regulate the right to bear arms into extinction. California thought it could lead the nation in dismantling the Second Amendment. Instead, it just got slapped down by the very legal framework it tried to weaponize.

The plaintiffs in this case include Olympic gold medalist shooter Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. Their victory is our victory—because this isn’t just about California. It’s about preserving the rights of every American, in every state, against a ruling class that believes your freedoms are negotiable.

They’re not.

This is a reminder that the fight for the Second Amendment is far from over—but we’re winning. And as long as we have judges who respect the Constitution, and citizens willing to stand up and challenge tyranny in court, we will continue to win.

Let this ruling ring out as loud as any shot on the range: the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.