Spring Cleaning Sale! Free/Flat Rate shipping on marked products. Shop now and enjoy the savings!
California’s ammunition background check law has been a point of contention, sparking debates over the balance between public safety and Second Amendment rights. The law requires individuals to undergo a background check before purchasing ammunition, aiming to prevent those with criminal histories or mental health issues from obtaining potentially lethal rounds.
The recent legal alert indicates that the Ninth Circuit has sided with California, granting a motion to stay the injunction against the ammunition background check law. This means that, despite previous legal challenges, the law will again be enforced while the state appeals any adverse rulings. The decision reflects the court’s consistent rejection of 2nd Amendment rights in favor of claimed public safety needs.
However, there are dissenting voices even among the liberal Ninth Circuit. Judge Callahan, a member of the Ninth Circuit panel, expressed disagreement with the majority decision. While the details of her dissent are not provided in the brief legal alert, it signals a division among the judges on the panel regarding the legal merits and implications of the ammunition background check law.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant a stay on the injunction has immediate consequences for California residents. Those seeking to purchase ammunition will again be required to ship ammunition to an FFL and be subject to background checks, as mandated by the law. This decision also sets the stage for a more protracted legal battle, as the state pursues an appeal and opponents seek to challenge the constitutionality of the law.
The case raises broader questions about the intersection of state regulations, individual rights, and public safety. Proponents of the ammunition background check law argue that it is a necessary measure to prevent individuals with violent tendencies or criminal backgrounds from easily acquiring ammunition. On the other hand, opponents contend that such laws infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.
The dissenting opinion from Judge Callahan suggests that there are differing perspectives within the judiciary on the constitutionality and justification of the law. Legal experts will closely follow the development of the case, as it may have implications beyond California, influencing similar legal battles in other jurisdictions.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant a stay on the injunction against California’s ammunition background check law means that “Freedom Week Part 2” is over. California residents are back to living under the previous regime that prevents them from freely ordering ammunition without government interference. We lament this decision, but must abide by the ruling nonetheless.
13 Responses
Excellent article. And kudos for True Shot for bending over backward to help us in kalifornia during our few days of freedom. All ammo I buy now will be from True Shot.
Thank you for supporting us in CA! I’m thankful I received my shipment in 4 days right before this decision. I’m hoping to count on you in the future. ‘Till next time boys! Cheers
Great article! Freedom Week 2 was nice while it lasted. Myself and I am sure thousands others were able to ex recuse our constitutional right again, but we all know (or ones who follow 2A rights in CA) knew this was going to happen!
NOOOOOOOO!!!!! Our rights are violated again! I’ve been trying to buy ammo all week from several different websites and all of them said the ammo needed to go to an FFL or wouldn’t ship to California at all even during the injunction on the Ammo Background Check restriction and before the stay on the injunction! The flip-flopping of the law is super frustrating. I just want to get ammo to train and a couple of cases of JHP self-defense ammo since all I have left are FMJ ammo for practice but am being forced to use it as self-defense ammo since I can’t buy anything because the nearest FFL is far away or closed when I’m off work. Using FMJ instead of JHP in self-defense could cause over penetration and lead to an accidental death and not defending myself because of a lack of JHP ammo could lead to my death. This situation is screwed up!
Great read explaining the current situation… thank you
Agree.
If they want their ILLEGAL background check for ammo then refund the money to the LAW ABIDING CITIZENS that checked out CLEAN and do what you please to the people that SHOULD NOT OWN ammo or firearms.
Thanks true shot for supporting cali . I got my order in before the decision so you will ship my order to my house glad I pull the trigger fast
I placed an order on February 2.2024 , before the 9th’s circuit decision to stay the order and reverse Judge Roger Benidez ruling. Since the order was executed before the February 5,2024 reversal. Will the purchase still go thru ? Or will it get cancelled or require it to be diverted to a CA-FFL?
Hello John,
Looks like your order was placed within the window (01/31 – 02/05) and will still make its way to you directly. Essentially, all orders placed from 02/06 forward will have to be shipped to an FFL. But you are good to go.
If you have any further questions please feel free to call (888) 736-6587 or email [email protected].
“And these ten shall not be infringed. ” Is the first amendment part of the ten?
Is the fifth amendment part of the ten?
Is the SECOND AMENDMENT part of the ten?
WHAT DOSE INFRINGED MEAN?
TrueShot Rules My order will be shipped direct!!!
Outstanding TrueShot! Just got my shipping notification! Good lookin’ out for those of us buried deep in Kommiefornia!