A federal appeals court recently ruled California's law requiring background checks for purchasing ammunition unconstitutional, igniting a fervent response from state officials, including Gov. Gavin Newsom as Newsmax reports.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the law inconsistent with the Second Amendment, referring to a 2022 Supreme Court precedent.

The ruling, issued by a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit, came after a 2-1 decision on Thursday. The judges decided to uphold a lower court's preliminary injunction against enforcing this law, which California voters originally approved in 2016.

Permit process rejected

Under the challenged measure, gun owners were required to undergo initial background checks and pay $50 for a four-year ammunition purchasing permit.

At its inception, this law was seen as a step toward stronger gun control, addressing concerns about gun violence.

Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta, writing for the majority and supported by Judge Bridget Bade, emphasized that this law significantly restricts the ability to maintain operable arms. This assertion hinges on a historical perspective of U.S. gun laws.

According to the text-and-history test from the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court's Bruen decision, the judges evaluated whether historical precedents existed to support California's restriction. The court ultimately saw no relevant predecessors.

Opinions on historical context diverge

The Bruen decision, which struck down a New York concealed carry law requiring applicants to prove a special need, served as a framework for analyzing California's ammunition measures.

The panel concluded the measure did not fit within the longstanding traditions of American gun regulation because similar laws were not enacted before the 20th century.

However, Judge Jay Bybee disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Bruen test. In his dissent, he argued that the decision improperly applied this test, expressing concern over potential implications for future gun regulations.

Bybee questioned if any regulation on ammunition or firearms would avoid "meaningfully constraining" the right to bear arms under the newly established standards. His critique underscores judicial disagreements surrounding this contentious topic.

State officials react

Newsom expressed discontent with the court's decision, stating, "Strong gun laws save lives -- and today's decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence."

Newsom further remarked on the significance of the voters' original decision, emphasizing, "Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter."

With the court's decision in place, California's efforts to enforce stricter gun regulations face a significant challenge. Officials are left to determine how best to proceed in ensuring the safety of their communities.

Potential legislative responses awaited

As the ruling stands, the state may need to explore alternative methods to pursue its gun safety objectives. This critical balance between respecting citizens' rights and addressing public safety concerns continues to drive legislative discussions.

The decision adds another layer to the already complex dialogue surrounding gun control in the United States. With the precedent from New York's case looming large, other states may reevaluate similar laws in light of this ruling.

The broader implications of the 9th Circuit's decision could extend well beyond California, influencing policy debates and judicial attitudes across the nation.

As legal experts and lawmakers examine this ruling, the evolution of gun regulation in America remains uncertain.