UPDATE: On 2/5/2024, the 9th Circuit granted a stay of Judge Benitez’s injunction ruling. So Californians may NOT purchase ammunition from out of state. CLICK Here for CRPA update and watch video below for details.

NOTE: The Benitez Ruling Explained Below Has Been Blocked by the 9th Circuit

Big news for California gun owners. You can now purchase ammunition online and have it shipped directly to your residence in California. And you can purchase ammo at California gun shops without paying for a background check. A Federal Judge has issued an injunction that blocks application of California laws requiring costly background checks for ammo purchases. NOTE: Right now, Californians can buy ammo without these restrictions, but it is possible that the Ninth Circuit could change things very soon. Act now while you can. Being able to mail-order ammunition from major vendors outside California makes ammo more affordable for Californians.

On January 30, 2024, in the case of Rhode v. Bonta, U.S. Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez issued an order blocking the application of California laws which place severe limits on ammunition purchases by Californians. Benitez ruled that California’s laws requiring background checks on ammunition purchases were unconstitutional and invalid on multiple grounds. As noted by the San Diego Union-Tribune: “U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled that such restrictions violate the Second Amendment. He also ruled that the portion of the law restricting out-of-state purchases violated the dormant Commerce Clause and is preempted by federal law regulating interstate transportation of firearms.”

Washington Gun Law Video Explains the Key Legal Points of Judge Benitez’s Order:

The Associated Press reports: “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 [1/30/2024] ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez took effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta [then] asked Benitez on Wednesday to delay the ruling[.]” Subsequently, Judge Benitez issued an order denying Bonta’s stay request. So, until the 9th Circuit acts, the injunction stands and Californians can buy ammo without a background check.

Four years ago, in April 2020, Judge Benitez had issued a preliminary injunction blocking California’s ammo background check laws. But days later the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of that injunction, effectively negating the Benitez ruling, and putting California’s unconstitutional laws back into effect. But there have been significant changes now based on recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, in particular the Bruen case: “After the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the 9th Circuit sent the case back to Benitez to be relitigated under that new framework, which holds that modern gun laws must be ‘consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation’.” (SD Union-Tribune).

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and fourteen firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers has filed a major lawsuit in Federal Court, NSSF et al vs. Letitia James (N.Y. Atty. General). This action seeks to overturn New York States “public nuisance” law which targets gun makers for the criminal misuse/unlawful possession of firearms in New York no matter where they were purchased. The plaintiffs also moved for a preliminary injunction challenging the misguided New York statute as unconstitutional.

The NSSF brought this legal action to “uphold the foundations of tort law, fight government overreach, and protect the firearm businesses that lawfully operate and employ over 340,000 Americans.” Along with the NSSF, the other 14 plaintiffs include: Beretta USA, Central TX Gun Works, Davidson’s, Glock, Hornady Mfg., Lipsey’s, Osage Co. Guns, RSR Group, Shedhorn Sports, SIG Sauer, Smith & Wesson, Sports South, Sprague’s Sports, and Sturm Ruger & Company.

The challenged law, signed by disgraced Democratic Party Governor Andrew Cuomo, allows civil lawsuits by municipalities, such as the city of New York, as well as the State of New York, against the firearm industry for the criminal actions by non-associated third parties. The “public nuisance” statute also permits private lawsuits by persons who have been harmed or threatened by criminals using firearms. Both New York State and the City of New York were part of a wave of similar lawsuits filed over twenty years ago that led to Congress passing the bipartisan PLCAA in 2005.

New York’s “public nuisance” law subjects firearm industry companies to civil lawsuits for the criminal misuse or unlawful possession of firearms in New York. The law would impose liability on industry members for firearms lawfully sold anywhere in the United States that end up being criminally misused or illegally possessed in New York thereby allegedly contributing to a “public nuisance” in the state. The NSSF lawsuit challenges the New York law as preempted by the Federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). It also challenges the law as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The lawsuit further challenges the law as an impermissible attempt by New York State to regulate interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.

The NSSF states that “New York is trying to use the threat of crushing liability to coerce out-of-state businesses to adopt sales practices and procedures not required by Congress or the law of the state where they operate. The Constitution reserves the power to regulate interstate commerce solely to Congress.”

“This [NY public nuisance] law is not about making our communities safer but rather, as former Governor Andrew Cuomo once proclaimed, to impose on the firearm industry a ‘death by a thousand cuts.’ [This] lawsuit will end this unconstitutional attack on the businesses, large and small, vital to Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President for Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel. “Opening up members of the firearm industry to a torrent of baseless civil lawsuits is – as it was in the past – an effort to impose radical gun control policies by litigating the forceful bankruptcy of companies.”

Product Manufacturers Are Not Liable for Criminal Misuse of Products
The PLCAA codified a bedrock legal principle. Manufacturers and retailers are not responsible for the subsequent criminal misuse or illegal possession of their lawfully sold, non-defective products by remote third parties – criminals – over whom they have no control. Firearm industry members are not legally responsible for illegal shootings any more than a cookware manufacturer is responsible if a criminal misuses a sharp kitchen knife to stab someone.

Legal experts such as Professor Jonathan Turley have long defended the merits of the PLCAA pointing out that laws like the one recently passed in New York are “unsound attempts” to distort principles of liability. New York’s law allows the very type of novel tort law actions, including those by New York State and City of New York, struck down by courts two decades ago.

The public nuisance law is just the latest threat to the gun industry coming from New York. In recent years, New York state officials have attempted to get banks to stop working with gun makers. And N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James has filed an action to dissolve the NRA.