9th Circuit Strikes Down Key Gun Law: Background Checks for Ammo Blocked in Newsom’s Initiative

California’s efforts to enforce background checks for ammunition purchases took a hit when the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state’s first-ever law on the matter. This move is part of a bigger trend in which gun control measures in California are being challenged one by one since a landmark Supreme Court decision in 2022 expanded gun rights.

The law, passed by voters in 2016 and backed by then-Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, aimed to require background checks for anyone buying ammunition. Before it could take effect in 2018, gun rights advocates and ammunition vendors filed a lawsuit to block it. Two years later, a federal judge issued a temporary ban, though the 9th Circuit initially paused that order, allowing the law to proceed.

But everything changed after the Supreme Court’s ruling in *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen*, which questioned the fairness of New York’s concealed carry regulations. This ruling threw California’s gun control system into turmoil, leading to the 9th Circuit revisiting the issues surrounding ammunition background checks.

In a recent opinion, Justice Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote that California’s background check system significantly limits residents’ rights to own firearms. She noted the law’s fees and procedural hurdles, which create barriers for those looking to buy ammunition. Newsom criticized this decision, stating that strong gun laws save lives and that voters deserved to have their voices heard.

The law mandated in-person transactions through licensed dealers, effectively restricting online ammunition sales and complicating out-of-state purchases. Buyers were required to swipe their IDs, which were checked against multiple databases for criminal records or mental health issues. They also had to pay a fee for this background check to be run through state resources.

The question at the heart of this legal battle is whether a law “meaningfully constrains” the Second Amendment rights to bear arms, as framed by the Supreme Court. Earlier rulings by the 9th Circuit upheld zoning laws that limited gun stores but deemed those decisions different because buyers still had access to firearms. The new ruling argued that the ammunition law is distinct, posing a significant hurdle to gun ownership by controlling ammo access.

California’s attorneys pointed to historical laws as support for their case, but the court rejected this reasoning. They stated that past regulations didn’t align closely enough with the current law, questioning its constitutional validity. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Jay Bybee expressed concerns that this decision could open the door to interpreting many firearm regulations as violations of the Second Amendment.

This ruling not only affects California but may set a precedent in other states wrestling with similar gun control issues. A 2021 survey found that around 55% of Americans support stricter gun laws, yet opinions on amendments often split along partisan lines. The dynamics around gun legislation in California will likely continue evolving, making it a key area to watch in the upcoming years.

Source link

Gavin Newsom,guns,U.S. Supreme Court