As of July 1st, ammunition buyers in California are now paying a 400% increase in background check fees – from $1 to $5 per purchase. The change has already taken effect, and it’s leaving many gun owners frustrated. The California Department of Justice says the fee hike is necessary to cover the cost of the system. But critics say it’s yet another way to burden lawful gun owners who are already playing by the rules.
This jump isn’t just about a few dollars. According to Shasta County Sheriff Michael Johnson, this is a targeted move. “There’s no big cost for them to do it,” he told KRCR News Channel 7’s Mike Mangas. “It’s just another way to make it harder for law-abiding citizens to exercise their rights.”
How We Got Here: Prop 63 and the DOJ’s Debt
To understand how the fee grew, we need to go back to Proposition 63, which was passed in 2016. The law created a mandatory background check system for ammunition purchases. When the system was launched, the California DOJ took out a $25 million loan from the state to build the infrastructure. According to Matt Cubeiro, a Second Amendment attorney with Michel & Associates, the state initially estimated 13 million transactions per year would help repay the loan.
But that never happened. Instead, Cubeiro told CRPA TV that the actual number of transactions ended up being “less than 10%” of the projected amount. The system fell financially underwater. People began buying ammo in bulk, or just not buying at all, to avoid repeated fees. That left the DOJ scrambling to recover the shortfall, which led to the fee increase.
The Regulatory Mechanics Behind the Hike
The process of raising the fee wasn’t simple, but it was legal. As Cubeiro explained, the DOJ has statutory authority to adjust the fee under California law. Originally capped at $1, the legislature later amended the law to allow the DOJ to set a higher fee through its own regulatory process. That’s exactly what happened: the DOJ used its regulatory power to push the fee from $1 to $5, effective July 1st.
“It’s not just a fee,” Cubeiro said. “It’s a roadblock. A financial barrier.” And what’s worse, according to him, is that it’s unlikely to ever go back down – unless the courts step in.
Shasta County Sheriff: “It’s a 400% Attack on Lawful Gun Owners”
Back on the local level, Sheriff Johnson didn’t mince words. “If you look at it, it’s a 400% increase. That may not seem like a lot, but to me it is.” Speaking with KRCR’s Mike Mangas, Johnson argued that it’s not about public safety – it’s about making life harder for gun owners.
He also pointed out that California already imposes an 11% excise tax on all firearms and ammo. This tax, passed under AB 28, was implemented just last year. “Now you’re paying sales tax, an excise tax, and a background check fee every time you buy ammunition,” Johnson said. “How far are they going to go?”
Is the System Even Working?
That’s the question everyone’s asking: is this background check system actually stopping criminals? Cubeiro doesn’t think so. “If you’re a criminal, you’re not going to a gun store to buy ammunition,” he said on CRPA TV. “You’re going to find other ways to get it.”
He pointed out that when the system launched, the DOJ bragged about its effectiveness. But lately? Silence. “They’re not even touting its results anymore,” Cubeiro noted. With California facing major budget issues, even law enforcement funding has taken hits. Meanwhile, the ammunition verification system continues to charge citizens more, without clear proof that it’s working.
A Court Victory on the Horizon?
There may be some light at the end of the tunnel. Cubeiro referenced the ongoing Rhode v. Bonta lawsuit, which challenges the very legality of California’s ammo background check system. While the lawsuit is still working its way through the courts, a favorable ruling could overturn the fee entirely.
“I don’t think this goes away in our lifetime unless the courts rule it unconstitutional,” Cubeiro said. But the legal fight is far from over. Until then, Californians are stuck paying more to exercise a constitutionally protected right.
One-Gun-a-Month Rule Struck Down
In what many are calling a big win for the Second Amendment community, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that California’s one-gun-per-month law was unconstitutional. The law had restricted people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period. But according to the court’s ruling, that law violated the Second Amendment.
The court found that owning and acquiring multiple firearms is a protected right under the Constitution. “The Second Amendment protects the right to possess and carry arms – plural,” the judges wrote in the opinion. This ruling sets a strong precedent and may serve as a weapon against future restrictions.
The Looming Threat of Assembly Bill 1078
But that hasn’t stopped lawmakers from trying again. Assembly Bill 1078 is already in motion. This new legislation proposes a three-guns-a-month limit. Yes, California is literally trying to repackage a law that was just ruled unconstitutional. According to Cubeiro, AB 1078 includes a clause that it will only take effect if the current ruling gets overturned – a move he called “unique” but telling.
“It shows just how confident they are that an en banc panel or the Supreme Court might reverse the win,” Cubeiro said. “They’re planning for it. That’s troubling.”
A Legal Loophole or Legislative Gamesmanship?
It’s not just about laws anymore – it’s about strategy. California legislators appear to be playing a long game, hedging their bets on the court system. They’re confident that if they wait long enough, a judge somewhere might side with them. And when that happens, they want laws like AB 1078 ready to go.
This kind of pre-emptive legislation, based on hypothetical court outcomes, is rare – and arguably reckless. It’s like writing a law “just in case” your last one gets a second life.
Death by a Thousand Fees
Here’s what it all adds up to: the fee hike, the excise tax, the ammo check, and the possible return of gun-purchase limits. It’s what critics are calling “death by a thousand fees.” And these aren’t criminals being punished. These are law-abiding citizens – people who go through background checks, have permits, and follow every law to the letter.
“It’s not about public safety,” said Sheriff Johnson. “It’s about making it harder for regular people to own guns. Period.”
When the System Punishes the Wrong People
Let’s be honest. If a criminal wants to buy ammo, a $5 fee isn’t stopping them – they’re not shopping at legal stores. The only people this law affects are the ones following the rules. And when you create a system that punishes the people doing things the right way, you’re not increasing safety – you’re increasing resentment.
It’s the principle that stings. Even if it’s “only five bucks,” it’s five bucks more for exercising a right, not a privilege. That’s what has people so upset – and rightfully so.
A State of Constant Litigation
California is now a battlefield for gun rights litigation. Every year brings new restrictions, new fees, and new legal fights. This latest fee hike is just one more chapter in a long story that’s far from over. The outcome of lawsuits like Rhode v. Bonta and the fate of bills like AB 1078 will shape what comes next.
Until then, California gun owners can expect more hurdles, more costs, and more court dates than range days.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.