Ammo to California

[ABRUNO]

HI! I know that some changes happened last week in regards to shipping ammo to California but am I now legally able to ship direct to person or does it still need to go to an FFL until the ruling is official?
I am hearing and seeing conflicting information.

And I know you all won't steer me wrong

Thanks!
Amy

 

[ABRUNO]

Crickets

 

[CJ6]

I don't know..
But I've seen Targetsports saying that they're shipping.....at least advertising they are.
Maybe check with a competitor...

 

[ELR LVR]

HI! I know that some changes happened last week in regards to shipping ammo to California but am I now legally able to ship direct to person or does it still need to go to an FFL until the ruling is official?
I am hearing and seeing conflicting information.

And I know you all won't steer me wrong

Thanks!
Amy

Screw em
Encroachment
----------------------------

U.S. Supreme Court​

Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91 (1945)Screws v. United States

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects, or causes to be subjected, any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both."

 

[ELR LVR]

In Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943),
The state cannot and does not have the power to license, nor tax, a Right guaranteed to the people,” and “No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore.”

In another case, the Court ruled similarly, that “If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, and attempts to issue a license and fee,
the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.” (Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama, 373 U.S. 262).

 

[ELR LVR]

Not telling you what to do, or give you legal advice
Just telling you, Know your rights, You have them only if you fight for them
----------

18 U.S. Code § 241 - Conspiracy against rights​

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured—

They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both

-----------
I will say that even during the High Cap Ban
There were still a couple outfits that shipped them to Calif
Knowing - Rights, and a business is not a regulatory agency to infringe upon a persons rights

 

[1911nut]

Seems like there’s more to come, ie, appeals, Supreme Court.


From Grok:

On July 24, 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, struck down California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases, ruling it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The law, enacted in 2019 after a 2016 voter-approved ballot measure (Proposition 63), mandated background checks for each ammunition purchase to ensure buyers were not prohibited from owning firearms. The court, led by Judge Sandra Ikuta, found that the law “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms, as ammunition is essential for operable firearms, and failed to align with historical firearm regulation traditions as required by the 2022 Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The ruling upheld a lower court’s permanent injunction against the law, initially blocked by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez in 2024. Gun rights advocates, including plaintiffs like Olympic shooter Kim Rhode and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, celebrated the decision as a victory for Second Amendment rights, citing burdens like fees, delays, and database issues that blocked lawful purchases. Critics, including Governor Gavin Newsom and gun control groups, argued the law was a critical public safety measure, noting it blocked 191 prohibited individuals from buying ammunition in 2024. The dissent by Judge Jay Bybee called the law a “minimal burden” with a $1 fee and short processing time.

California may seek a rehearing by a larger 9th Circuit panel or appeal to the Supreme Court. The state’s Department of Justice is evaluating legal options.