Ammo Background Checks Surge 500% in California—Gun Owners Sound the Alarm

Starting July 1, 2025, California gun owners will face a major hike in fees every time they try to buy ammunition. The state’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has approved a fivefold increase in the background check fee for ammunition purchases, from $1 to $5 per transaction. This increase has sparked outrage among gun owners, who already face multiple layers of regulation. YouTuber and firearms rights advocate William from Copper Jacket TV broke down the news and the implications in a recent video, calling the hike both excessive and unconstitutional.

The Timeline: From Proposal to Reality

The fee increase was first proposed back in January 2024, and later opened to public comment in September 2024. That period ended in October, and the majority of comments were firmly against the change. According to the official Final Statement of Reasons from the California DOJ, the comments were acknowledged, but not acted upon. Despite widespread opposition, the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) gave the plan a green light on May 12, 2025, locking in the July 1 implementation date.

What the State Says About It

The DOJ claims the $1 fee wasn’t enough to support the state’s “ammunition authorization program,” which has racked up millions in operational debt. According to the Final Statement of Reasons, the program started with a $25 million loan from the General Fund, with additional $4.3 million loans authorized in both FY 2023–24 and FY 2024–25. They say the new $5 fee will finally bring in enough revenue, about $5.29 million annually, to keep the program going.

What It Means at the Cash Register

In real-world terms, this means that every single time you buy ammo, you’ll pay a $5 background check fee – even if you’re just buying a single box. William from Copper Jacket TV pointed out how fast that can add up. “You could probably make a car payment at the end of the year with how much extra you’re giving to the state,” he said. When paired with California’s 11% excise tax on ammo, this fee adds another hit to the wallets of those trying to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

The “Eligibility Check” Explained

The fee is tied to what’s called a Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check (SAEC). According to the DOJ, these checks help prevent people who are legally prohibited, due to felony convictions, domestic violence restraining orders, or mental health conditions, from buying ammunition. But William calls the process little more than a bureaucratic hurdle designed to price out law-abiding citizens. “This is just a fancy way of saying background check,” he said, “and now it’s five times more expensive.”

Public Opposition Was Ignored

The public had a chance to weigh in – and they did. Hundreds of comments flooded the DOJ, arguing the fee increase was unnecessary, unconstitutional, and discriminatory. Some noted that it would disproportionately impact low-income individuals, minorities, and women. Others said it would discourage regular range practice, ultimately reducing firearm safety. But the DOJ dismissed these concerns, saying the comments opposed the underlying law, not the specific regulation.

Legal Challenges Already in Motion

This isn’t the end of the story. A lawsuit known as Rhode v. Bonta has already been filed, challenging the entire ammunition background check system. William reminded viewers that oral arguments were held back in December 2023, and the case is slowly moving forward. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a stay of a district court injunction that briefly halted the program, meaning the law remains in effect until higher courts make a final decision. But the litigation gives hope to many that the fee, and the background check system itself, may not be permanent.

DOJ’s Fiscal Justification

According to the DOJ, the original $1 fee was based on an expected 20 million transactions per year. In reality, the volume has been closer to 1 million, which means the system has been running on a financial deficit for years. The Department now estimates it will process around 1,036,000 SAECs per year at the new $5 rate. They claim these changes are necessary to cover not just personnel and IT costs, but also ongoing loan repayments that keep the system afloat.

Death by a Thousand Fees

What’s especially troubling here isn’t just the dollar amount – it’s the direction. A $1 fee became $5 overnight, with no real ceiling in sight. What stops them from raising it to $10 next year? Or $20? Once you’ve accepted the idea of paying a fee to exercise a right, the floodgates are open. It’s a trend we’ve seen across many states: chip away at the right until it’s still “legal,” but barely reachable. This isn’t about safety. It’s about deterrence through cost.

Is This Really About Public Safety?

If this system actually kept ammo out of the hands of criminals, there might be a debate to be had. But critics like William point out that criminals don’t buy ammo through legal means anyway. “This doesn’t stop crime – it just stops people from practicing,” he said. Gun owners who want to stay sharp, teach their kids, or take part in sport shooting are now the ones paying the price. And ironically, making it harder for them to train could make gun use less safe, not more.

Alternatives Suggested – But Ignored

During the public comment phase, some residents proposed workable alternatives. One suggestion was an annual ammo permit – a flat fee to cover all purchases for the year. Others asked for exemptions for security personnel, or lower fees for bulk purchases. Still others suggested using the surplus from other gun-related funds, like the DROS account. But the DOJ rejected every one of these ideas, saying they didn’t align with Senate Bill 1235, which mandates a check every time.

What to Expect After July 1

Once the new fee goes into effect on July 1, 2025, Californians can expect longer lines, more paperwork, and more cost with every trip to the range or gun shop. The DOJ insists this is a necessary safety measure, but gun owners see it as another step in a slow-motion dismantling of their rights. Lawsuits may eventually overturn it – but until then, it’s the new normal. “It’s not the gun that’s under attack,” William warned, “it’s your ability to use it that they’re going after.”