A federal appeals court grilled lawyers for California on Wednesday over the state’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases as judges weighed whether it violates the Second Amendment.
The full bench of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in a case challenging the legality of a California law that mandates background checks each time a person buys ammunition for a firearm. A three-judge panel on the appeals court struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment in 2025, with the panel finding the law “meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.” The full court heard arguments in the case in a Pasadena courtroom.
Several judges offered sharp questions toward Helen Hong, an attorney from the California Department of Justice, specifically about how the law would limit constitutional gun rights related to acquiring ammunition for a firearm. Hong defended the state law as being an extension of licensing laws that the Supreme Court has previously upheld for firearm sales.
“The Supreme Court has recognized that states may implement laws to ensure that those keeping and bearing arms in a jurisdiction are authorized to do so, the court has emphasized that ‘shall issue’ licensing regimes, which often require applicants to undergo background checks, are constitutionally permissible under the Second Amendment,” Hong asserted to the judges.
“In 2016, California enacted such a regime designed to ensure only that those purchasing ammunition in the state are authorized to do so,” she added.
Hong was also questioned by the judges over people being incorrectly denied the ability to purchase ammunition for their firearms. She responded that “millions have been able to successfully acquire ammunition in the state.” A judge, seemingly unconvinced, responded that her response is similar to saying that laws restricting speech, another constitutional right, would allow millions to speak even if they would still unlawfully limit some others from their constitutional right to speech.
The lawyer representing California also faced questions about her assertion that “there are certain laws like conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms that do not implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment,” citing certain instances of purchasing ammunition that do not implicate the amendment. Some judges seemed deeply skeptical of her claims to distance the law from the Second Amendment.
Lawyers suing over the California law and those with the U.S. Department of Justice who support striking it down also faced several sharp questions about whether the Golden State’s law violates the Second Amendment.
DOJ URGES COURT TO RULE CALIFORNIA’S AMMO BACKGROUND CHECK AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The appeals court did not offer a time frame for a ruling at the conclusion of the hearing, but it is expected to issue a decision within the coming months.
Once the full appeals court has ruled on the case, the losing side could appeal to the Supreme Court. During the high court’s current term, the justices have heard cases on a Hawaii gun law banning firearms from most private properties in the state and on a federal law barring unlawful drug users from possessing guns.
