Skip to main content
U.S.

Court keeps Calif. ammo background check in place after judge rules it unconstitutional

Feb 6

Share

Media Landscape

See who else is reporting on this story and which side of the political spectrum they lean. To read other sources, click on the plus signs below.

Learn more about this data

Left 0%

Center 33%

Right 67%

Bias Distribution Powered by Ground News

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel put a hold on a federal judge’s ruling that California’s ammunition background check is unconstitutional. The hold, issued on Monday, Feb. 5, enables California to continue requiring background checks for those who are purchasing bullets.

QR code for SAN app download

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

In 2016, the ammo background check law was approved by California voters and then amended by the Legislature to include background checks for every ammo purchase.

Three-time Olympic gold medalist in shooting, Kim Rhode, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association challenged the law in court.

On Jan. 31, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez ruled the background check law violated a person’s right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.

“Today, a person may choose to submit to a full credit check to buy an automobile,” Benitez wrote in his decision. “But he is not required to pass the same credit check every time he needs to refill his car with gas or recharge his battery at a charging station…. Similarly, when a person chooses to buy a firearm, he is required to undergo a full background check. However, until now, he was not required to also go through a background check every time he needs to refill his gun with ammunition.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called Benitez’s ruling “dangerous” and asked the 9th Circuit to intervene while the state appeals the lower court’s ruling.

A three-judge panel for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued the hold in a 2-1 decision.

“California’s lifesaving, common-sense, constitutional ammunition laws will remain in place as my office continues to defend them in court,” Bonta wrote in a post on X. “The lower court’s dangerous decision has been halted from going into effect.”

The ammo background check law will remain in effect while the state pursues the appeal.

Tags: , , ,

[LAUREN TAYLOR]
CALIFORNIA CAN CONTINUE REQUIRING BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR PEOPLE PURCHASING BULLETS.

THAT’S AFTER A 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS PANEL PUT A HOLD ON A FEDERAL JUDGE’S RULING THAT CALIFORNIA’S AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECK IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IN 2016, THE AMMO BACKGROUND CHECK LAW WAS APPROVED BY CALIFORNIA VOTERS AND AMENDED BY THE TO INCLUDE BACKGROUND CHECKS FOR *EACH AND EVERY AMMO PURCHASE.

THREE-TIME OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALIST IN SHOOTING KIM RHODE AND THE CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION CHALLENGED THE LAW IN COURT.

LAST WEEK – U-S DISTRICT COURT JUDGE ROGER BENITEZ RULED THE BACKGROUND CHECK LAW VIOLATED A PERSON’S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. In his decision, Benitez WROTE: “TODAY, A PERSON MAY CHOOSE TO SUBMIT TO A FULL CREDIT CHECK TO BUY AN AUTOMOBILE. BUT HE IS NOT REQUIRED TO PASS THE SAME CREDIT CHECK EVERY TIME HE NEEDS TO REFILL HIS CAR WITH GAS OR RECHARGE HIS BATTERY AT A CHARGING STATION…. SIMILARLY, WHEN A PERSON CHOOSES TO BUY A FIREARM, HE IS REQUIRED TO UNDERGO A FULL BACKGROUND CHECK. HOWEVER, UNTIL NOW, HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO ALSO GO THROUGH A BACKGROUND CHECK EVERY TIME HE NEEDS TO REFILL HIS GUN WITH AMMUNITION.”

CALIFORNIA’S ATTORNEY GENERAL -ROB BONTA- CALLED BENITEZ’S RULING “DANGEROUS” AND ASKED THE 9TH CIRCUIT TO INTERVENE WHILE THE STATE APPEALS THE LOWER COURT’S RULING.

A THREE-JUDGE PANEL FOR THE 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS ISSUED THE HOLD IN A 2-1 DECISION ON MONDAY.

IN A POST ON X, BONTA SAID “ CALIFORNIA’S LIFE-SAVING, COMMON-SENSE, CONSTITUTIONAL AMMUNITION LAWS WILL REMAIN IN PLACE AS MY OFFICE CONTINUES TO DEFEND THEM IN COURT. THE LOWER COURT’S DANGEROUS DECISION HAS BEEN HALTED FROM GOING INTO EFFECT.”

THE LAW WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT WHILE THE STATE PURSUES THE APPEAL.