Ninth Circuit Temporarily Restores California Ammunition Background Checks

A three judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday reinstated California’s law that requires background checks for most ammunition purchases, reversing an earlier ruling that had struck the 2019 measure as unconstitutional. The order restores a regime first approved by voters in 2016 and implemented in 2019 while litigation over the statute continues.

The law was the first of its kind in the nation when it took effect. It requires purchasers to undergo a background check before acquiring ammunition, a requirement the state says is intended to prevent people prohibited from possessing firearms from obtaining ammunition while preserving lawful access for others. Opponents argued that the requirements, including a fee and a waiting period at the time of the prior ruling, imposed meaningful burdens on lawful gun owners and therefore infringed Second Amendment rights.

In July, a different three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit found that those aspects of the law interfered with constitutional protections and struck down the statute. The newly issued order issued Monday blocks that July decision and reinstates the background check requirement, at least temporarily, as the case moves forward in the federal courts. The appellate court noted that the law does not prohibit any person who is legally permitted to possess ammunition from purchasing it, a point that underpins the state’s defense.

California’s attorney general’s office defended the statute in litigation filings and public statements, arguing the law balances public safety goals with the rights of lawful firearms owners. With the reinstatement, the state’s background check system remains in effect while plaintiffs pursue their constitutional challenge through the appeals process.

The decision carries immediate practical consequences for retailers and consumers. Ammunition sellers in California must continue to follow the state’s screening and recordkeeping procedures rather than reverting to pre July practices. For gun owners who rely on timely access to ammunition for hunting, sport, or personal protection, the order maintains existing transactional requirements and any fees or delays associated with the process.

Beyond the immediate operational impact, the ruling underscores the contested legal terrain over voter approved gun safety measures. The statute originated in a statewide ballot measure in 2016, reflecting direct voter engagement on firearm policy. Its journey through the courts highlights how initiatives adopted at the ballot box can encounter significant judicial review, producing divergent outcomes within the same appellate court.

As the case proceeds, it will continue to test the boundaries between state regulatory authority, constitutional protections, and the practical effects of background checks on lawful commerce. The order issued Monday preserves the status quo for now, ensuring that the statute remains enforceable while the judiciary resolves the underlying constitutional questions.