Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

BumRushDaShow

(157,375 posts)
Thu Jul 24, 2025, 01:35 PM Jul 24

California cannot require background checks to buy ammunition, US appeals court rules

Source: Reuters

July 24, 2025 1:21 PM EDT Updated 12 mins ago


July 24 (Reuters) - A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that California's first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge's permanent injunction against enforcing the law. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said California failed to show that the law was consistent with the country's historical tradition of firearm regulation, as required under a 2022 U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

"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," violating the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, Ikuta wrote.

The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, which defended the law, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. California Governor Gavin Newsom's office did not immediately respond to a similar request.

Read more: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/california-cannot-require-background-checks-buy-ammunition-us-appeals-court-2025-07-24/

5 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

chowder66

(11,020 posts)
3. Maybe there shouldn't be a charge for people to buy guns and ammo.
Thu Jul 24, 2025, 02:29 PM
Jul 24

Wouldn't that "infringe" on people's rights to "keep" and "bear" arms?

cstanleytech

(27,809 posts)
4. Yet porn can be blocked according to the Courts by the States, violating the 1st Amendment!!
Thu Jul 24, 2025, 03:59 PM
Jul 24

I guess we know which Amendment the Courts don't really care about.

pat_k

(11,508 posts)
5. Perhaps we'll see a petition for a rehearing by the full court (en banc) ?
Fri Jul 25, 2025, 02:44 AM
Friday

I would expect better from the ninth.

The panel was Judge Ikuta (appointed by G.W. Bush and wrote the majority opinion), Judge Bridget S. Bade (appointed by Trump), and Judge Jay S. Bybee (appointed by G.W. Bush and wrote the dissent).

In a court with 16 judges appointed by Democrats and 13 by Republicans, it seems unfortunate that you would get a panel of 3 judges appointed by Republicans.

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-24/9th-circuit-background-check-california-ammunition

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»California cannot require...