Ruling Upheld – You’ll Need a Background Check Just to Get a Box of Ammo

New York’s ammunition background-check regime isn’t going anywhere – at least not for now.

WRGB CBS 6 reported that the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld a lower court’s refusal to block the state’s ammo-check requirement, a key piece of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) enacted in 2022. 

The New York State Firearms Association had sought to stop the law while its broader challenge plays out. A federal district judge said no in May 2024; the Second Circuit just agreed.

New York Attorney General Letitia James promptly declared victory, saying her office had “successfully defended New York’s background checks on ammunition sales,” and framed the law as a public-safety measure meant to help New Yorkers “feel safe in their community,” as summarized by WRGB CBS 6.

Whether you cheer or jeer, the immediate practical consequence is simple: in New York, acquiring ammo continues to come with a background check.

What the Second Circuit Actually Said

Attorney William Kirk, who hosts the Washington Gun Law channel and parsed the ruling on camera, called it “a brutal” decision for gun owners living under the law. 

His critique centers on how the three-judge panel applied – or didn’t apply – the Supreme Court’s Bruen test.

According to Kirk, the Second Circuit did not wade into step two of Bruen (the historical-tradition analysis) because it said the plaintiffs lost at step one. In the panel’s view, the ammunition screening rules do not “meaningfully constrain” the right to keep and bear arms, so the Second Amendment isn’t even implicated.

That framing matters. If the court says a regulation doesn’t burden the right in a meaningful way, it never has to justify that regulation against history and tradition. Kirk’s bottom line: the panel decided the law is merely an administrative hurdle – annoying, perhaps, but not unconstitutional.

As he summarized it, the court also blessed the kinds of fees and delays that accompany the checks, so long as they’re designed to cover administrative costs and impose no more than a “marginal” restraint. 

To critics, that sounds like the return of interest-balancing tests Bruen was supposed to retire. To supporters, it’s a reasonable way to distinguish an inconvenience from an infringement.

Why This Ruling Stings for Opponents

Kirk argues the Second Circuit’s approach creates a dangerous blueprint: rebrand burdens as “modest,” and you avoid the heavy lift of historical justification. 

If the state can attach a fee, impose a wait, and erect a gate at the cash register – and have courts call it a mere “retail experience” issue – what limits remain?

He also flagged what he sees as a growing split with the Ninth Circuit over similar laws. In Kirk’s telling, a Ninth Circuit panel recently struck down California’s ammo-check scheme in Rhodey v. Bonta, while the Second Circuit moved in the opposite direction on New York’s system. 

That divergence, if it holds through further appeals, is the kind of clash that can draw the U.S. Supreme Court.

Whether or not you share Kirk’s constitutional alarm, his read reflects how many gun-rights advocates feel: a right delayed can become a right denied, especially when the delay is trip-wired to every routine sale.

How We Got Here: The CCIA’s Long Shadow

WRGB CBS 6’s timeline helps frame the fight. The legislature enacted the CCIA in July 2022 after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision invalidated New York’s previous carry regime. 

The CCIA is sprawling, but one prong requires point-of-sale background checks for ammunition.

Gun-rights groups filed multiple lawsuits in 2023 to strike down various provisions, including the ammo checks. In May 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York refused to issue a preliminary injunction, signaling the challengers were unlikely to win. 

The Second Circuit has now affirmed that denial, letting the law remain in force while litigation continues.

For Attorney General James, that’s a string of defensive wins. For the New York State Firearms Association, it’s more trench warfare ahead.

What This Means at the Counter (and Online)

In practical terms, the status quo in New York remains:

• Point-of-sale screening: Expect a state-run background check when you acquire ammunition, similar in feel to a firearm check but separate from the federal NICS system.
• Fees and time: Plan for an added cost at the store and potential delays. The court said “modest” fees and “modest” delays don’t meaningfully burden your rights, which is a judicial way of telling consumers and retailers: pad an extra few minutes (or more) into your ammo errand.
• Inventory ripple effects: Retailers will err on the side of caution. If the check system blips, some stores will suspend ammo transactions until it’s back. Any outage—tech, staffing, or holiday traffic – spreads like a backlog across weekends.
• Online complications: If you’re used to ordering ammo to your door, expect New York’s rules to keep that lane narrow. Many sellers route shipments to licensed dealers for in-person transfer, which means your “two-day delivery” now includes a stop, a call, and another ID check.

I’d love to say this will all run as smooth as a self-checkout lane at 10 a.m. on a Tuesday. But any system that inserts a government database between you and a box of .22LR will have bad days. Build that into your range plans.

The Legal Chessboard: What’s Next?

No one should expect the litigation to stop here. Kirk anticipates petitions for full en banc review in the Second Circuit, and notes similar maneuvering out West. 

That’s normal in constitutional fights of first impression – especially post-Bruen, where courts are still settling on what counts as a “meaningful” burden or a proper historical analogue.

A true circuit split would increase the odds of Supreme Court review, but that takes time, and it’s never guaranteed. In the meantime, New York’s ammo-check regime becomes more entrenched by the day. 

Each month that passes without outright chaos or clear constitutional injury gives defenders of the system another talking point: see, it works.

Opponents would counter that “working” isn’t the standard; compliance costs and chilled purchases are harm enough. If you’re scored “delayed” before a hunting weekend, or you pay fee after fee across a season, that’s not theoretical. It’s the slow tax of time and money.

Rights, Retail, and the “Modesty” Trap

This ruling turns on a word that does a lot of heavy lifting: modest.

If a law’s burdens are modest, the Second Circuit says the Second Amendment may not even be in play. That sounds tidy. It’s also where real-world friction lives. 

What’s “modest” at a quiet suburban shop on a Wednesday can feel punitive on opening day of deer season when the system slows to a crawl.

The court’s “no guarantee of a particular retail experience” line will rankle plenty of lawful owners. Of course rights don’t come with a customer-service promise. But treating time and fees as mere preferences understates how regular people encounter the law: at a counter, with a calendar, and a budget.

Could an ammo-check system be crafted that’s truly light-touch—fast, accurate, and cheap? Possibly. The question is whether states can build one and keep it that way through budget cycles, staff turnover, and peak seasons. 

The Second Circuit has given lawmakers room to try. It has also given challengers a clean target: show how “modest” turns into “meaningful” in lived experience.

For now, New Yorkers will keep showing ID for ammo. Supporters will call it common sense; opponents will call it constitutional contortion. 

Both sides will keep litigating. And the rest of the country will keep watching to see whether “modest” ends up being a speed bump – or a toll booth – on a constitutional right.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

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.