A federal appeals court this week struck down California’s landmark law requiring background checks and in-person transactions for ammunition purchases, the latest in a string of judicial wins that have gun rights advocates celebrating.

For now, until further legal steps play out, Californians looking for ammo still face the same requirements as before.

But the opinion by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals follows closely on a separate panel’s ruling against a California law aimed at regulating the marketing of firearms to minors earlier this month, and on a federal court ruling Wednesday allowing gun rights advocates to continue a lawsuit against concealed carry rules in Los Angeles County.

“We’re on a roll,” said Southern California attorney and gun rights advocate Chuck Michel, who was involved in all three cases.

In its 2-1 ruling against the ammunition background checks, the appellate panel said Thursday that by limiting purchases, California’s law effectively limited the rights of gun owners to have functioning firearms.

But the judges’ divisions, along with a mix of rulings at the lower court and appellate level in the other cases, highlight the ways in which laws involving gun rights are evolving in the wake of two powerful Supreme Court decisions, along with a greater presence of conservative judges in the federal courts at all levels, said Leslie Gielow Jacobs, a constitutional law expert at the University of the Pacific’s McGeorge School of Law in Oak Park.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that struck down a state law in New York and set new standards for judging whether state and local governments improperly infringed on the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment protections of the right to bear arms. That opinion built on an earlier 2008 ruling that specifically said that the right was given to individuals, not just to states or the public at large.

“What we see here and what we’re going to continue to see is judges and courts differing on what exactly the test is that the Supreme Court says they should apply,” Gielow Jacobs said. “And then absolutely they’re going to differ in applying it.”

The legal precedents that are being applied and developed under the Supreme Court rulings could also be influenced by the general outlook of a jurist, Gielow Jacobs said. For example, a judge with a more conservative mindset might tend to think the need to undergo a background check every time someone wanted to buy ammunition was burdensome, while a judge with a more liberal outlook might not.

All three of the judges were appointed by Republican presidents, and even though they were not unanimous, Michel credits the presence of more jurists appointed by Republicans with an increase of rulings in gun advocates’ favor in some cases.

In 2022, a 9th Circuit panel said California’s law requiring purchasers of semi-automatic weapons be 21 or older was unconstitutional.

The ruling drew criticism from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who called it a “slap in the face” to efforts to combat gun violence.

“Strong gun laws save lives,” Newsom said in a statement. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

The lawsuit aiming to overturn the background check requirement was filed by Kim Rhode, an Olympic-level skeet shooter who has won six medals in the sport — three gold, one silver and two bronze, according to the Team USA website.

She sued in 2018, after a combination of a voter initiative and legislative action tightened laws governing the purchase of ammunition in the state. The law background checks every time ammunition was purchased, and allowed only in-person purchases. It also flagged large purchases of ammunition.

The requirements were onerous for Rhode, who needed to buy considerable ammunition for her sport, and discouraged newcomers to shooting sports, said Michel, who represented her in the case.

“It’s a huge burden for someone who shoots professionally, or just wants to have a gun in their house to defend their family,” said Michel. Firearms purchasers already have to undergo a background check to buy their guns, he said.

An earlier provision in state law that would have allowed people to obtain a certificate to buy ammo for a few years after undergoing a background check was less onerous, and might not have been challenged in court, he said.

The ruling does not affect federal and state laws requiring background checks for the purchase of firearms, or local ordinances regulating gun sales.

It was not clear, however, when — or whether — the process for buying ammunition in California would change under the ruling. The appeals panel has not yet issued an order to accompany their opinion, and the state has two weeks to request a review by the full Court of Appeals, rather than a panel of three judges.

Asked whether Attorney General Rob Bonta would request such a review, the California Department of Justice said “we are looking into our legal options.”

The department called the ruling “deeply disappointing” said the law saved lives by preventing ammunition from falling into the wrong hands.

“Our families, schools and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence,” the department said.

____

©2025 The Sacramento Bee. Visit at sacbee.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.