In his decision to overturn Prop. 63, a federal judge said these restrictions were unconstitutional and violated a citizen’s right to bear arms<\/p>\n
![\"Ammunition](\"https:\/\/www.outdoorlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/california_gun_Shop_ammo.jpg?w=2048\")
<\/p>\n
Ammo at a gun shop in Placerville, California, during the ammo shortages of 2020. Background checks, nontoxic requirements, and ammo shortages have made purchasing hunting ammo in the state difficult. Photo by SvetlanaSF \/ Adobe Stock<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
We may earn revenue from the products available on this page and participate in affiliate programs. Learn More \u203a<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n A California law requiring in-person background checks for every purchase of ammunition was overturned Tuesday by a federal court in the District of Southern California, bringing the state\u2019s regulation of ammunition sales more in line with the rest of the country.\u00a0<\/p>\n In his decision<\/a> U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez called the background checks both unconstitutional \u2014 the basis for overturning the law \u2014 and ineffective. He pointed to high rejection rates (between 11 and 16 percent) for law-abiding ammo buyers, and compared these to just .03 percent of buyers who were rightly denied because they were on a prohibited list.\u00a0<\/p>\n The decision comes in response to a lawsuit, Rhode v. Becerra<\/a><\/em>, that was filed against the state by online retailer Ammunition Depot, the California Rifle & Pistol Association<\/a>, and California native Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medalist in double trap and skeet.<\/p>\n The sweeping changes to California\u2019s ammunition laws first took root in 2016, when voters approved Prop. 63<\/a>, a ballot measure requiring gun owners to undergo background checks and buy a four-year permit (to the tune of $50) before they could purchase any ammo. In 2019, state legislators amended the measure so that gun owners would have to undergo a background check for each ammunition purchase they made. This law made California an outlier among the 50 states in terms of heavy restrictions placed on ammo buyers.\u00a0And even though ammunition laws vary by state, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez made it clear in his Jan. 30 decision that these restrictions had \u201cno historical pedigree\u201d and violated California citizens\u2019 right to bear arms.<\/p>\n \u201cAll agree that the ammunition necessary to use a gun is covered by the Second Amendment\u2019s protection for keeping and bearing arms,\u201d Benitez writes. He also cites a previous judge\u2019s conclusion in Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco<\/a><\/em>, which found that \u201cwithout bullets, the right to bear arms would be meaningless.\u201d<\/p>\n Most objections to the background checks are rooted in how impractical it\u2019s been for law-abiding hunters and shooters to purchase ammunition in their state. They have not been able to order ammo online and have it shipped to their home, with one in six legal applicants getting rejected due to red-tape issues like the wrong address on their driver\u2019s license. According to Ammunition Depot, state-wide ammunition sales plummeted by 95 percent since Prop. 63 went into effect.<\/p>\n \u201cProp 63 made e-commerce next to impossible in California,\u201d Ammunition Depot CEO Dan Wolgin told Outdoor Life<\/em> in an email. \u201cBefore the law went into effect on January 1, 2018, California made up 10 to 15 percent of our sales and we saw an approximately 99 percent decrease in revenue contribution from California. So the impact on e-commerce was even higher than the 95 percent decrease in overall sales within the state.\u201d<\/p>\n While retailers seem relieved, California hunters are also celebrating today\u2019s decision. A triple whammy of recent ammo shortages, California\u2019s non-toxic ammunition requirements, and the ammo background checks (with the additional fees and quirks of California\u2019s system) have made it particularly difficult for hunters to find the ammunition they need in a convenient and timely manner.<\/p>\n Read Next:<\/strong> How to Buy Ammunition Online (Without Getting Totally Ripped Off)<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cI\u2019m excited about this,\u201d says J.R. Young, a hunter who lives in Los Gatos Mountains and serves on the national board of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers<\/a>. \u201cYesterday is a perfect example. My good friend has a rifle in .270 Weatherby which is a difficult cartridge [to come by]. Weatherby posted online that they had ammo in stock \u2026 and I sent a note over to him telling him \u2018run, don\u2019t walk, jump on this before they sell out.\u2019 So he did, and he ended up having to pay $10 per box to have a local dealer run the background check for him.\u201d<\/p>\n Holly Heyser, a central California duck hunter and former communications director for California Waterfowl<\/a>, says she can understand the principle behind the law. The execution, however, has been problematic, as she\u2019s previously argued<\/a>.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe law says that the address on your driver\u2019s license has to match the address in their system, and \u2018in the system\u2019 is the last time you purchased a gun,\u201d says Heyser. \u201cI am a homeowner, I\u2019ve lived in my home since 2004, I don\u2019t move a lot, and it\u2019s not a problem for me. But a young person who\u2019s in college, or someone who has just relocated to a new city? They have to do an address change to get their address corrected in the system. Typically that has taken people so long that it is easier just to buy a gun to get in the system with your new address. I have talked to people who have been told by the state Department of Justice, \u2018just go buy a new gun, it will be faster.\u2019 So that\u2019s a real problem.\u201d<\/p>\n Heyser was working at CW when Prop. 63 went into effect; the law was so convoluted and the background checks so glitchy that she started a webpage to help hunters sift through the requirements<\/a> just to buy a box of duck loads. While Heyser has never personally had any issues with the background checks (thanks in part to a stable address)\u200b\u200b, she mentors new hunters who absolutely struggle with the process.<\/p>\n \u201c[Another] huge problem with the ammo background check law is for new hunters who haven\u2019t bought a gun yet,\u201d says Heyser. \u201cIt\u2019s really common \u2014 and actually smart \u2014 for a new hunter to hold off on buying a gun until they know a little bit more about what kind of hunting they want to do \u2026 So if you haven\u2019t bought [a gun] you have to pay for a very expensive background check. [It\u2019s] a one-time check and it can take three days or more to get an answer back. So you\u2019re going on a hunt, and that\u2019s what you have to go through to actually get a box of shells? It\u2019s hard enough when you\u2019re starting hunting just figuring out all the things you need to do \u2014 like making sure your hunting license is [correct] and figuring out how <\/em>to shoot a gun \u2014 to have this incredible extra layer of complexity for simply getting the ammo.\u201d<\/p>\n A further quirk of California\u2019s ammunition purchasing laws is how it applies to non-residents, who are legally allowed to fly or drive ammo across state lines but unable to purchase it in the state. While it\u2019s not immediately clear if Tuesday\u2019s ruling affects non-resident ammo purchases, outfitters in particular are hopeful. Charlie Barberini runs Golden State Guide Service<\/a> on San Francisco Bay, where his clients travel to shoot scoters and other ducks they can\u2019t target in their home states.<\/p>\n Read Next:<\/strong> Here\u2019s What the Ammo Shortage Revealed About the Indust<\/a>ry<\/a><\/p>\n \u201cTo be honest [the ammo sale restrictions have] been a royal pain because I take a lot of people coming in from out of state out for multiple days,\u201d Barberini says. \u201cOn the airlines they\u2019re only allowed to bring two boxes [of shells] which makes it tough, especially when we\u2019re guiding sea ducks and divers. We shoot a lot of ammo, there\u2019s cripples and misses. [Ammo sale restrictions] have been a real pain in the butt.\u201d<\/p>\n As supporters of Prop. 63 have already pointed out, an appeal to Benitez\u2019 decision seems imminent. This could be a repeat of what happened in 2020, when Benitez issued a written decision to block the implementation of Prop. 63, only to have his decision appealed by the state. California\u2019s Attorney General Rob Bonta says the state plans to seek an immediate stay of the Jan. 30 decision, according to Reuters<\/em><\/a>. He asked Benitez on Thursday to delay his ruling so he could have time to appeal the decision. Benitez denied his request.\u00a0<\/p>\n In the meantime, at least, Ammunition Depot<\/a> is taking advantage of the ruling. Its homepage is currently running a banner that reads: \u201cWelcome back California! Now shipping ammo directly to your door.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n![\"A](\"https:\/\/www.outdoorlife.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/01\/GettyImages-1219039414.jpg?w=2048\")