Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s permanent injunction against California’s ammunition background-check regime. The panel majority held that the regime facially violates the Second Amendment under the framework established in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen because California failed to demonstrate a relevant historical tradition supporting the regulation. A dissent would have upheld the regime as constitutional and would also have rejected the plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause and federal preemption arguments.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether California's ammunition background-check regime facially violates the Second Amendment.
- Whether the Second Amendment's Bruen two-step framework applies to a facial challenge.
- Whether the challenged regime meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear operable arms at the plain-text step of the Bruen analysis.
- Whether California established a relevantly similar historical tradition supporting its recurring ammunition background checks, fees, and delays.
- Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting a permanent injunction.
Holdings
- The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to keep arms operable, which necessarily includes the right to possess ammunition. California's regime meaningfully constrains that right because it applies to all ammunition acquisitions by California residents and requires fees, in-person procedures, and background-check approval before possession.
- California's ammunition background-check regime fails the second step of the Bruen framework because none of the historical analogues offered by California is within the relevant time frame or relevantly similar in how and why it burdens the Second Amendment right.
- Bruen's two-step framework applies regardless of whether the plaintiff brings a facial or as-applied Second Amendment challenge.
- The district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a permanent injunction because California's ammunition background-check regime violates the Second Amendment.
Key quotations
“We hold that California’s ammunition background check regime is unconstitutional, and we affirm the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction.” (8)
“For the challenged rule to pass constitutional muster, it must be a “well-established and representative historical analogue, not a historical twin.”” (24)
“Because none of the historical analogues proffered by California is within the relevant time frame, or is relevantly similar to California’s ammunition background check regime, California’s ammunition background check regime does not survive scrutiny under the two-step Bruen analysis.” (46)
“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.” (54)
Factual background
California's Proposition 63 created a regime requiring residents to obtain Department of Justice approval before taking possession of ammunition. The regime requires ammunition purchases to occur through licensed vendors in face-to-face transactions and provides several eligibility-check procedures involving fees, database searches, possible fingerprinting, and varying approval periods. California also restricts residents from bringing ammunition purchased outside the state into California without delivery through a licensed California vendor.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement challenge to California's ammunition background-check, face-to-face transaction, and anti-importation requirements. The district court initially entered a preliminary injunction; the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded after New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. On remand, the district court consolidated the preliminary-injunction hearing with a merits trial under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(a)(2), entered a permanent injunction, and found violations of the Second Amendment, dormant Commerce Clause, and federal preemption principles. California appealed.