STRUCK DOWN! California Background Check for Ammo Purchase Violates 2nd Amendment

On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, struck down a recent California law that requires background checks for small-arms ammunition purchases. Judge Benitez, in his ruling, cited the Bruen decision and the 2nd Amendment.

California residents don't have to pay for and pass a background check every time they buy bullets, a federal judge has ruled.
The Tuesday ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez took effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta asked Benitez on Wednesday to delay the ruling to give him time to appeal the decision. It's unclear if Benitez will grant that request.
Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun. California goes a step further by requiring a background check, which cost either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, every time people buy bullets. A few other states also require background checks for buying ammunition, but most let people buy a license that is good for a few years.
California's law is meant to help police find people who have guns illegally — like convicted felons, people with mental illnesses and those with some domestic violence convictions. Sometimes they order kits online and assemble guns in their home. The guns don't have serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to track, but the people who own them show up in background checks when they try to buy bullets.

There are a couple of misleading statements in this quote:

"Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun." This is not (solely) a state requirement, and "many states" don't require this, all of them do; it's a federal law. Some states, like Alaska, omit the requirement for a point-of-purchase background check for those who have a state-issued concealed-carry (CCW) permit (Alaska requires an added block of instruction beyond the basic CCW class), but those permit holders have undergone a more extensive background check before receiving their permit.

"California's law is meant to help police find people who have guns illegally..." The law may be meant to do that, but these kinds of laws rarely have that effect; what this law is far more likely to do is create a healthy black market in ammunition. It seems obvious that any would-be malefactor who has gone to the trouble to build a non-traceable firearm and intends to commit a crime is unlikely to be tripped up by something as obvious as a background check.

Gun control laws, in fact, generally have little effect on criminals, instead only affecting the law-abiding.

Legislation in Maryland Would Place Prohibitive Insurance Requirement for Firearms 'Wear or Carry'

Judge Benitez cited the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court's recent Bruen decision.

Benitez said California's law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because if people can't buy bullets, they can't use their guns for self-defense. He criticized the state's automated background check system, which he said rejected about 11% of applicants, or 58,087 requests, in the first half of 2023.
“How many of the 58,087 needed ammunition to defend themselves against an impending criminal threat and how many were simply preparing for a sporting event, we will never know,” Benitez wrote. “What is known is that in almost all cases, the 322 individuals that are rejected each day are being denied permission to freely exercise their Second Amendment right — a right which our Founders instructed shall not be infringed.”

While the decision will certainly be appealed and end up in the notorious Ninth Circuit, this is another case where the implications of the Bruen decision are making themselves known - and another affirmation that the Second Amendment means precisely what it says - "shall not be infringed."