As of now, only two states in the U.S. — California and New York — require background checks for ammunition purchases. California led the charge, and New York quickly followed suit. Many fear that if these laws continue to stand, more states will adopt similar restrictions, further limiting Americans’ access to ammunition and their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

While these laws are often marketed as “public safety measures,” critics argue that they are less about safety and more about control — a direct effort to monitor and regulate every aspect of lawful gun ownership.

Imagine needing government approval every time you wanted to attend church, publish a blog, or express your views online. Most Americans would find that outrageous. Yet, when it comes to exercising the Second Amendment, courts across the country seem willing to allow exactly that.

Both California and New York are currently facing lawsuits over their ammunition background check laws.

• California’s case: Roodie v. Bonta — currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• New York’s case: New York State Firearms Association v. James — before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Both courts are known for their activist judges and a history of rulings that lean against gun rights. However, in an unexpected twist, the Ninth Circuit — often criticized as the most anti–Second Amendment court — actually ruled against California’s ammunition background check law earlier this year, calling it unconstitutional.

In July, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s ammunition background check system “facially violates the Second Amendment.” The panel cited the Bruen decision, which requires courts to evaluate firearm restrictions based on the nation’s historical tradition of regulation.

Meanwhile, less than a week ago, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s nearly identical law, claiming that the background checks and fees “do not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms.”

In essence, the Second Circuit concluded that the restrictions are too minor to count as a constitutional violation — and didn’t even bother applying the Bruen historical test.

This reasoning — that the law doesn’t “meaningfully” restrict rights — has been criticized as subjective and dangerous. Who decides what’s “meaningful”? To many gun owners in California and New York, being forced to pay fees and wait for background checks (which often lead to false denials) feels like a very real infringement.

By sidestepping the historical analysis that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision requires, the Second Circuit has effectively given itself room to uphold almost any restriction by simply deeming it “not meaningful.”

The case now returns to the district court in New York, which has already shown hostility toward gun rights. Still, the legal fight is far from over.

If the Ninth Circuit’s ruling against California is upheld by an en banc panel and continues to conflict with the Second Circuit’s decision, it would create a circuit split — a key factor that could push this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until then, New York’s ammunition background check law remains in effect, while California’s remains under review.

The Second Circuit’s decision underscores a growing problem: courts that interpret constitutional rights based on ideology, not the rule of law. Whether you live in California, New York, or anywhere else, these rulings set a dangerous precedent for how easily fundamental rights can be chipped away.

Until we see judges who respect all constitutional freedoms — including the Second Amendment — these battles will continue in courtrooms across the country.