Law Appeals Court Blocks California’s Background Checks for Ammunition Buyers - (7-24-2025)

[lopez1171]

Word to everyone else WildHorse is a no go. They took forever to attempt to ship. Didn’t respond to emails in a timely manner. Ultimately they wouldn’t ship to a residence. Had it shipped to an FFL. They gave 1 tracking number and actually shipped 3 different packages. I had to pay tax, the 11% fee and $20 per each package.

 

[Dvrjon]

Word to everyone: There is no need to tell us every ammunition dealer who isn’t shipping to California. They all have stopped because the statute prohibiting importation of ammunition is still in full force under the original stay of the lower court ruling. Nothing has changed since 2016 (except a ton of legal fees charged).

The action of the 9 CA panel is being held awaiting review of the State’s Petition for Rehearing (panel) or Rehearing en banc.
Amici have filed to support the request:
Everytown for Gun Safety
Gun Violence Prevention Groups

The Court directed Plaintiff-Appellees (us) to file a response to the Petition by 29 Aug.

This was done today.

The 9 CA will consider the submitted pleadings (more Amici are expected) and then decide on whether the case should be rehearsed.
If it is reheard, the ammo bans will remain in effect pending the rehearing results and mandate.
If we win, the State will appeal to SCOTUS.
If we lose, we will appeal to SCOTUS.
THIS WILL BE GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME.

In the interim, the prohibitions on ammunition purchasing will remain.

////////

The wildcard here may be in the court’s commentary regarding the original (Prop 63 requirements) that an individual be licensed to buy ammunition (Required individuals to obtain a four-year permit…$50…from DOJ to buy ammunition and for ammunition dealers to check with DOJ that individuals buying ammunition have the permit). SB1235 over-wrote that provision to give us the current (and now, unconstitutional) process. DOJ and Newsom might see the writing on the wall and put forth legislation reverting to an ammunition licensing scheme which is more SCOTUS-friendly.

Then, we go back to the district court and replay everything. While the current system remains in place.

 

[Khellen27]

My referencing 2awarehouse is because they were shipping to ffl03/coe and after this debacle, they are no longer shipping to CA at all.

 

[Dvrjon]

My referencing 2awarehouse is because they were shipping to ffl03/coe and after this debacle, they are no longer shipping to CA at all.

The entire industry’s pucker factor hit 11 with this. It’ll take a minute for equilibrium to realign.
In the interim, when needed, we can advise out-of-state merchants as to the ground truth and that the FFL-03+COE provisions still are in play.

 

[star.3d]

This was done today.

Thank you very much for linking this.

 

[Khellen27]

The entire industry’s pucker factor hit 11 with this. It’ll take a minute for equilibrium to realign.
In the interim, when needed, we can advise out-of-state merchants as to the ground truth and that the FFL-03+COE provisions still are in play.

I explained this to the rep on the phone but they basically said they don't want to deal with California lawmakers at this time. Kind of a shame they won't ship to legally registered recipients.

 

[FekTok]

Does the ruling change anything with regards to ammunition trading by individuals within the state? I assume ammo trades must still go through an FFL if the buyer doesn't have a C&R and COE.

 

[star.3d]

I assume ammo trades must still go through an FFL if the buyer doesn't have a C&R and COE.

That's correct. Additionally, PPT ammunition transfers are capped at 500 rounds per seller per 30 days. § 30342(a)

 

[Hit Factor]

Does the ruling change anything with regards to ammunition trading by individuals within the state? I assume ammo trades must still go through an FFL if the buyer doesn't have a C&R and COE.

That's correct. Additionally, PPT ammunition transfers are capped at 500 rounds per seller per 30 days. § 30342(a)

Although as a general rule, you probably shouldn’t associate with the type of person who would turn around and report you both to the authorities after trading ammo with you anyway.

 

[BigBlaze]

////////

The wildcard here may be in the court’s commentary regarding the original (Prop 63 requirements) that an individual be licensed to buy ammunition (Required individuals to obtain a four-year permit…$50…from DOJ to buy ammunition and for ammunition dealers to check with DOJ that individuals buying ammunition have the permit). SB1235 over-wrote that provision to give us the current (and now, unconstitutional) process. DOJ and Newsom might see the writing on the wall and put forth legislation reverting to an ammunition licensing scheme which is more SCOTUS-friendly.

Then, we go back to the district court and replay everything. While the current system remains in place.

I doubt CA would go for that wildcard and revert to a four-year licensing scheme. This would circumvent CA ability to collect the sales tax & excise tax. At this point I don't think they would be willing to give up all that free money they're making of the entire 2A community.

It would allow us the 2A community to purchase from online vendors that don't collect the tax and have it shipped directly to our front door.

 

[Dvrjon]

Does the ruling change anything with regards to ammunition trading by individuals within the state? I assume ammo trades must still go through an FFL if the buyer doesn't have a C&R and COE.

The Giffords Gun Control group's lawyers wrote the language for Prop 63, Safety For All Initiative.
As a datapoint, they have stated for years on their website (Sales and Transfers of Ammunition; 7th Bullet entry):

State law authorizes people to sell or share ammunition with their spouses, domestic partners, parents, grandparents, children, and grandchildren without the participation of a licensed vendor. (Citing CA Pen 30312(c). It also authorizes people to freely share (but not sell) ammunition in person with friends and shooting partners, unless they have reason to believe that the ammunition would be illegally provided to a criminal or illegal user. (Citing CA PEN 30306).

KQED Politifact analysis quoted Dan Newman, spokesman for the Safety For All Initiative:

"[Ammunition owners] They could still freely transfer and share that ammunition with their hunting and shooting partners provided that they do so in person and do not have knowledge that the ammunition would subsequently be provided to a felon or other prohibited person".

Apply that foundational information as you will.

 

[Dvrjon]

I doubt CA would go for that wildcard and revert to a four-year licensing scheme. This would circumvent CA ability to collect the sales tax & excise tax. At this point I don't think they would be willing to give up all that free money they're making of (sic) the entire 2A community.

It would allow us the 2A community to purchase from online vendors that don't collect the tax and have it shipped directly to our front door.

California is in trouble with this litigation. They may need an emergency plan to short-circuit the damage this litigation could do to their anti-gun cause. It would also be hitting just about the time Gav wants to run hard for his next payday. Once again, that was language in Proposition 63 (Page 172) that Newsom fronted and 63% of the voters voting approved, but the Legislature (de Leon) hijacked to put in the current system.

Article 4. Ammunition Purchase Authorizations 30370. (a) (1) Commencing on January 1, 2019, any person who is 18 years of age or older may apply to the Department of Justice for an ammunition purchase authorization. (2) The ammunition purchase authorization may be used by the authorized person to purchase or otherwise seek the transfer of ownership of ammunition from an ammunition vendor, as that term is defined in Section 16151, and shall have no other force or effect. (3) The ammunition purchase authorization shall be valid for four years from July 1, 2019, or the date of issuance, whichever is later, unless it is revoked by the department pursuant to subdivision (b).

(g) The department may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed fifty dollars ($50) per person for the issuance of an ammunition purchase authorization or the issuance of a renewal authorization, however, the department shall not set these fees any higher than necessary to recover the reasonable, estimated costs to fund the ammunition authorization program provided for in this section and Section 30352, including the enforcement of this program and maintenance of any data systems associated with this program.

The Excise tax is still a thing and would continue to be levied on firearms and precursor parts. Many vendors apply CA state taxes to purchases. CA has been very adept at making vendors pay into the coffers. The licensing approach renders the constant background check argument moot and shifts the program into a licensing scheme which, under Bruen, could see some support (just like concealed carry licensing schemes).