The Second Amendment provides that “a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

That seems pretty simple, a militia, presumably military, has the right to own guns. Those few words have generated as much controversy as any other in our Constitution. In recent years our US Supreme Court has favored the unregulated ownership and use of firearms. Government regulations restricting gun use are generally found unconstitutional. So California tried a different approach. Voters approved a 2016 ballot initiative relating to the purchase of ammunition which was later replaced by the Legislature passing its own bill regulating the purchase of ammunition. That law was the first of its kind in the country. And probably the last.

Lawsuit Challenges Ammunition Restrictions

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 63, later replaced by new laws which created a background check regime for ammunition sales, effective July 1, 2019. California residents may only purchase ammunition through licensed ammunition vendors in a face-to-face transaction. A routine background check costs only $1, but there is more to it than that. You know there’s more to it when applicable new Penal Codes go on for pages. Certificates of eligibility to purchase ammunition are good for only 18 hours. Out-of-state purchases are strictly restricted. California’s background check is required prior to each ammunition transaction regardless of when the last background check occurred. Humm.

The new law was challenged in 2018 by lead plaintiff Kim Rhode, who won Olympic medals for trap and skeet shooting, and several other plaintiffs. Amicus briefs supporting the plaintiffs were filed by 24 states. As many Amicus briefs were filed supporting California’s law.

Ninth Circuit Ruling

Two out of the three Republican-appointed Ninth Circuit judges rejected the ammunition restrictions: “We conclude that California’s ammunition background check meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms. California’s background check regime regulates all ammunition acquisitions by California residents; the regime applies not only to every transaction in California but also to ammunition purchases by California residents outside the state. It requires California residents to pay for and complete an in-person background check before each

ammunition acquisition… they do not require California to approve checks within a certain time frame. The requirements prior to various types of backgrounds checks, such as finger printing, inherently caused some amount of delay. After approval, moreover, a California resident may be required to purchase ammunition during a specified period of time – 18 hours after passing a background check”.

“By supporting California to do background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms”.

Dissent

A dissenting circuit judge opined that “the vast majority of its [background] checks cost $1 and impose less than 1 minute of delay. Nevertheless, the majority [of the court] concludes that the scheme violates the Second Amendment because it lacks a historical analog.”

Porter’s Perspective

Given the law of the country supporting gun manufacture and use, meaningful gun (and ammunition) regulation is not a reality anytime in the near future. Regardless of the number of mass shootings and other gun – related deaths.

Jim Porter is a retired attorney from Porter Simon, formerly licensed in California and Nevada. Porter Simon has offices in Truckee California and Reno, Nevada. These are Jim’s personal opinions. He may be reached at jameslporterjr@gmail.com. Like Porter Simon on Facebook. ©2025