A federal appeals court has upheld one of the most controversial provisions of New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) – a law that requires background checks for every ammunition purchase.
As reported by Johan Sheridan of ABC News10, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that New York’s ammo background check requirement does not violate the Second Amendment. The decision keeps in place a system that mandates every ammunition buyer undergo a state-run background check, pay a $2.50 processing fee, and buy only from sellers registered with the New York State Police.
The ruling, issued in New York State Firearms Association v. James, affirmed an earlier decision by a district court that denied an injunction request from gun-rights plaintiffs. The court said delays, fees, and registration requirements didn’t “meaningfully constrain” New Yorkers’ ability to keep or bear arms.
Critics, however, say the court just rewrote how the Constitution applies to the right to buy ammunition.
Plaintiffs Say The Law Strangles Gun Owners
According to Sheridan’s report, the plaintiffs, including State Senator George Borrello and Assemblymember David DiPietro, argued the system was an unconstitutional burden that left many unable to purchase ammo when the state’s database failed.
Borrello called the ruling “a clear violation of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” arguing that many of his constituents now travel to Pennsylvania to buy ammunition rather than deal with delays and fees in New York.
He said the system “places unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners who follow the law.”
DiPietro went even further, accusing state officials of hypocrisy. “They give violent criminals a longer leash with cashless bail,” he said, “while strangling responsible gun owners with endless bureaucratic hurdles.”
He claimed the CCIA was a “calculated scheme” designed to drive gun store owners out of business through backdoor regulation.
Despite those criticisms, New York Attorney General Letitia James celebrated the court’s decision, calling it a “commonsense law” that makes New Yorkers safer.
Judges Say It’s Just a “Modest Condition”
In his coverage for The Reload, journalist Jake Fogleman explained that the three-judge panel, composed entirely of Trump appointees, considered the background check “a modest condition” on commercial ammunition sales.
Judge Joseph Bianco, writing for the panel, concluded that the plaintiffs “failed to meet their burden” to prove the law meaningfully restricted their right to keep and bear arms. “Because Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate that they are likely to succeed at the first step of the Bruen framework,” Bianco wrote, “we have no occasion to engage in the historical analysis at step two.”
In other words, the court didn’t even apply the historical test established in the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision. Instead, it said ammo checks and fees were too minor to trigger constitutional scrutiny in the first place.
That’s the part that worries legal analysts – and gun-rights advocates most.
Jared Yanis: “They Just Created a New Loophole”
Gun-rights commentator Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets: 2nd Amendment News, blasted the ruling in a fiery video.
Yanis accused the Second Circuit of “creating a brand new unconstitutional loophole” that other states could copy. He said the judges twisted the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework by skipping the historical analysis entirely.
“Instead of asking whether the law violates the plain text of the Second Amendment,” Yanis said, “they said it doesn’t even reach that step because the ammo background check doesn’t ‘meaningfully limit’ your rights.”
He called that logic “a blueprint for how lower courts can gut the Bruen standard while pretending to follow it.”
Yanis warned that this ruling effectively gives states permission to impose minor restrictions, fees, and delays – as long as those obstacles aren’t catastrophic enough to block all access to ammunition. “If it’s inconvenient, but not impossible,” he said, “it survives. That’s how they’ll normalize infringements under the excuse of public safety.”
Delays, Fees, and Real-World Impacts
Both Sheridan and Yanis noted how the state’s background check system has been riddled with failures since launching in 2023. Gun owners have reported long delays, wrongful denials, and database crashes.
Yanis highlighted that one of the plaintiffs couldn’t buy ammunition because the system went down. The court acknowledged that delay but dismissed it as “a day at most,” calling it too short to qualify as a violation.
“That’s not how freedom works,” Yanis said. “You can have your constitutional rights put on hold because the government computer crashes – but as long as it’s not too long, the court says that’s fine.”
The $2.50 fee drew similar criticism. Fogleman explained that while the law technically charges the fee to the seller, the judges reasoned that it’s not the government’s fault if stores pass it on to customers.
Yanis called that reasoning absurd: “Buy a box of 9mm – fee. Come back next week – another fee. Forever.”
A Growing Divide Between Circuits
The Second Circuit’s ruling now clashes directly with a Ninth Circuit decision issued last July, which struck down California’s nearly identical ammunition background check system as unconstitutional.
As Fogleman noted, the two rulings have created a circuit split—a disagreement between federal appellate courts that could draw the attention of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Circuit dismissed the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning outright, calling it “flatly contradicted by our sister courts’ precedents.”
Jared Yanis argued that this divide could determine the next major Second Amendment showdown before the high court.
“If this decision stands,” he said, “it gives other states like Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey the green light to do the exact same thing – turning every single ammo purchase into a government-tracked transaction.”
The Historical Test That Never Happened
Fogleman’s report also underscored how the Second Circuit dodged the Bruen test entirely. That 2022 Supreme Court ruling required judges to evaluate whether a modern gun law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
But the Second Circuit panel never reached that stage. They decided the plaintiffs hadn’t proven the law burdened their rights enough to justify any historical comparison.
To many constitutional scholars, this is a subtle but significant shift. It allows courts to sidestep the most protective part of Bruen by simply declaring that minor restrictions fall outside the Second Amendment altogether.
Yanis called this “a dangerous precedent” that could be weaponized by other states. “If they can’t ban guns outright,” he said, “they’ll choke off access to ammunition instead.”
Supporters Call It Common Sense
Not everyone disagrees with the ruling. Sheridan reported that New York Attorney General Letitia James hailed it as a victory for public safety. “Every New Yorker deserves to feel safe in their community,” she said, vowing to continue defending the law.
Gun-control advocacy group Everytown Law also praised the decision. Managing Director Janet Carter called background checks for ammunition “a common-sense public safety measure” and said the Second Circuit “got it right.”
Still, gun-rights advocates see that praise as proof of a double standard. “They’re celebrating government control,” Yanis said. “Not safety – control.”
A Legal Shortcut With National Consequences
The Second Circuit didn’t just uphold a controversial law – it opened the door to something much bigger.
By labeling ammunition background checks a “modest condition,” the court effectively created a legal category where small restrictions are exempt from serious scrutiny. If other courts adopt this approach, it could gut the Bruen decision’s original intent: to stop states from sidestepping the Second Amendment with endless administrative hurdles.
Sheridan’s reporting shows that the case now heads back to a lower court, and the plaintiffs can still appeal. Fogleman notes that this new “modest condition” doctrine will likely tempt other blue states to copy New York’s model.
And as Yanis warned, “Your right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean anything if you can’t buy the ammunition to use them.”
In short, this ruling may not have banned bullets – but it might have licensed a new way to starve them out.
To learn more, check out the ABC News10 article here, The Reload’s article here, and the Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News video here.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
