Californians Can Now Buy Ammunition Online Just Like Free Americans
Golden State ammunition restrictions have been voided for violating the Second Amendment.
Last Thursday, I received a flurry of emails from ammunition dealers boasting variations on "now shipping directly to California residents."
"Due to a recent US District Court ruling in California, demand for ammunition has increased significantly," popular vendor Brownell's noted. "We have plenty of ammo in-stock, but If you find that the ammo you want is unavailable, don't worry!"
That was a quick heads up—within hours—that a panel of three judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found California's restrictive ammunition laws to be in violation of the Second Amendment. Like Americans in free states, Californians no longer need to jump through legal hoops—or illegally cross the state line—to feed their guns. They can make their purchases cash-and-carry or place orders online.
You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.
Background Checks for Bullets
In 2016, California voters passed Proposition 63 which, among other provisions, required background checks for every single ammunition purchase.
"Prior to the passage of Proposition 63 of 2016 (The Safety for All Act) and Senate Bill No. 1235 (SB 1235) (Reg. Sess. 2015-2016), the sale or transfer of ammunition was not regulated in California," according to the office of Rob Bonta, California's attorney general. "Proposition 63 and SB 1235 authorized the Department to complete an ammunition eligibility check or to verify that an individual's Certificate of Eligibility (COE) is valid when the individual purchases or transfers ammunition from or through an ammunition vendor."
Initially, the fee for the "standard" background check for those already in the Automated Firearm System (AFS) because they registered firearms was $1.00 per purchase, which recently went up to $5.00 (and who knows what it would have cost in the years to come). Basic checks for those not in the system as gun owners cost $19 for every purchase. Buying ammunition on trips out of state and transporting it back was outlawed in most cases, though it remained common. But that's irrelevant, since the fees and the bureaucratic intrusions they fund violate individual rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Turning a Purchase Into a Bureaucratic Headache
As detailed in Thursday's opinion by three Ninth Circuit judges, basic background checks for those who aren't already listed in the system as firearms owners "take an average of five to six days to process. Approval for a basic check expires 30 days after it is issued." Those who are already in the system undergo the faster standard check, assuming the system properly matches them with an entry. That's not always guaranteed.
"Many have reported difficulties, as well as uncertainty about whether and when the state's database has been updated with this information," reports California Waterfowl, a hunting advocacy group. The group also reports difficulties for those who have moved, married, or divorced, since the state makes it difficult and expensive to revise records with new information.
"For five out of six Californians, the process goes smoothly," adds California Waterfowl. "One in six, however, can't pass the background check, and the reason for the overwhelming majority of them is rooted in records…. Of the 102,147 people this law has stopped from buying ammunition as of this writing, 758 were actually 'prohibited persons.'"
Understandably, the law was immediately challenged by Olympic shooting champion Kim Rhode with the support of the California Rifle and Pistol Association and several firearms-related businesses. Rhode won a quick victory when the law was ruled unconstitutional, though the Ninth Circuit stayed that decision while the case worked its way through the courts.
Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court issued the 2021 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen decision that further reaffirmed constitutional protections for individual self-defense rights. Bruen held that "when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct" and that "only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this Nation's historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual's conduct falls outside the Second Amendment's 'unqualified command.'" Another district court decision against the California ammunition law followed, as did another stay. That led to last week's appeals court opinion.
The Right To Keep and Bear Arms Includes Ammunition
Writing for the majority in Rhode V. Bonta and joined by Judge Bridget S. Bade (with Judge Jay S. Bybee dissenting), Judge Sandra S. Ikuta detailed the significant bureaucratic expenses and delays Californians must suffer under the law to purchase ammunition. She wrote, "the Supreme Court has indicated that the Second Amendment protects 'operable' arms…. Because arms are inoperable without ammunition, the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition."
"Laws that impose 'conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms' are presumptively unconstitutional if they 'meaningfully constrain' the right to keep and bear arms," she added. "Given the fees and delays associated with California's ammunition background check regime, and the wide range of transactions to which it applies, we conclude that, in all applications, the regime meaningfully constrains California residents' right to keep and bear arms."
"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," Ikuta concluded.
"Today's decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence," Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom protested. "Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter."
No, they shouldn't. Constitutional protections are meant to protect rights from the majority as much as from rogue government officials. They should be firm barriers against infringements of individual rights, no matter the prevailing sentiments of those in power or the people who put them there.
While California is likely to appeal, the courts have been moving in a pro-Second Amendment direction.
So, if you're trying to place an online order for ammunition and frustrated by sudden "out of stock" notices across numerous websites, have some patience. You may just need to wait a bit while our long-suffering friends in California celebrate their escape from several years of violated rights.
