Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases? Californian’s, Stock Up Now!

By Dave Dolbee published on in Ammunition, Legal

California’s Proposition 63 requires individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a permit. The measure then mandates dealers to check this permit before selling ammunition, and will halt the mail-order sale of ammunition to California residents. What does this mean for California gun owners? Do you have a plan to stock up before Prop 63 goes into effect?

Multiple loaded magazines of .223 ammunition

California already has a magazine restriction in place. Don’t be caught short due to future ammunition regulations.

Proposition 63 — The Legal Stuff

In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation requires individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. The legislation also requires sellers to conduct background checks of purchasers with the Department of Justice. Some provisions of the legislation repealed and replaced parts of Proposition 63.

Changes to State Law

Proposition 63 will require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a permit. The measure then mandates dealers to check this permit before selling ammunition. The measure also eliminated several exemptions to the large-capacity magazines ban and increased the penalty for possessing them. Proposition 63 enacted a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms.

Striking Down Proposition 63

On May 17, 2017, five residents of San Diego County and the California Rifle & Pistol Association filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the U.S. District Court for Southern California. Plaintiffs said that California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, violated the Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 63’s added Section 32310(c), which was designed to make the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines an infraction or misdemeanor. The initiative also added 32310(d), which required owners of large-capacity ammunition magazines to dispose of the magazines by removing them from the state, selling them to a licensed firearms dealer, or surrendering them to a law enforcement agency. These sections of Proposition 63 were set to go into effect on July 1, 2017.

Illinois Supreme Court Justices

If only the common sense logic of Judge Benitez could grace more courts across our nation.

On June 29, 2017, Judge Roger Benitez ordered Attorney General Becerra to not enforce or implement Proposition 63’s Section 32310(c) and Section 32310(d). Judge Benitez’s order is a preliminary injunction, meaning the order is temporary pending conclusion of the legal case. Judge Benitez said Proposition 63’s section on large-capacity magazines is likely unconstitutional because it “burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the mere possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state.” He also stated, “The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table.”

Out-of-State Purchases

Starting in July 2019, the July 2016 legislation would have prohibited most California residents from purchasing ammunition outside the state and bringing it into the state without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer. Proposition 63 moved up the start date of this law to January 2018. It also made bringing out-of-state ammunition into the state, without first delivering it to a dealer, an infraction.

Plan of Action

Lower competition will likely lead to higher prices, not to mention California’s high sales tax rate. California could also follow other states by adding a sin tax to ammunition in the future, which would further lead to ammunition prices reaching near unattainable levels. Your best defense is to stock up now. If you have the means to buy everything you will need for the foreseeable future, act now. If, like most of us, that would more than strain the budget, you can buy some ammunition each month over the next six months—before the new law goes into effect January 1, 2018.

First, you need a plan. You may only own one gun or guns all of a single caliber, which makes your decision fairly easy. All you have to do is stock up on ammunition of that caliber—split for the intended uses. For example, if you have a home defense pistol, you would need a moderate supply of defensive rounds and the bulk of your stockpile would be training rounds. On the other hand, you may have a home defense pistol and rifle. In which you would want to split your stockpile and weigh how many rounds you had for each by the amount of practice you plan with each weapon. If you also had a shotgun, the formula would be about the same for each.

S&W M&P Shield Handgun

The Shield likes some ammunition better than others for accuracy, but function was good with everything we fed the piece.

Hunting considerations should be similar to your previous plans for home defense. You are going to need to prioritize by the caliber(s) you shoot most for practice and then the specific bullet types and weights you are most likely to hunt with in the field, plus an extra box for zeroing your scope or confirming zero before the hunt.

How Many Rounds Do You Need?

I am of the school that you can never have too many rounds of ammunition. I own multiple guns safes that each carries their share and then some. But let’s talk minimums that will keeps you covered. Let’s start with a Modern Sporting Rifle such as an AR-15 as you primary long gun and a Glock as your side arm. Two basic load outs for the AR would be 420 rounds. Even in a SHTF scenario, you should be able to get by on 365 rounds. Add those together with a little rounding and you have 800 rounds of .223. Ball ammunition is cheaper of course, but hunting ammunition and self-defense ammo may be interchangeable and ball is a poor rounding for hunting.

For your sidearm, 17×3=51, plus one round in the chamber equals 52. Double that for a basic loadout, and you are just over 100 rounds. Few of us are ever going to worry about using a Glock for hunting, so this will suffice as a strong minimum for storage and preparation. For me, that would also be per (adult or shooting age) person when looking at the long term. For example, in a defensive situation, my wife and I have worked out plans where we can cover different areas of the house, setup fatal funnels in a cross fire etc. If I were in a Californian’s shoes right now, I would have to take that into account as well—not to mention doubling the practice ammo allotment to cover both of us.

Look at your needs, means, and potential future requirements. Then make a plan that fits your needs. You’ll save some money, avoid some onerous regulations, and most importantly, be prepared.

Hopefully, organizations such as California Rifle and Pistol Association, NRA-ILA, Second Amendment Foundation, and others will find a way to kill this silly regulation using the Interstate Commerce Clause or something. However, if it were that simple, I am sure the legal minds of these organizations would have already so. All you can do in the meantime is stock up while you still have time.

Do you think the remainder of Proposition 63 will stricken down by the courts? How many rounds would you buy to prepare for the licensing, registration, and potentially higher prices in the future after Prop 63 takes effect in 2018? Share your answers, questions, or concerns in the comment section.


Growing up in Pennsylvania’s game-rich Allegany region, Dave Dolbee was introduced to whitetail hunting at a young age. At age 19 he bought his first bow while serving in the U.S. Navy, and began bowhunting after returning from Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm. Dave was a sponsored Pro Staff Shooter for several top archery companies during the 1990s and an Olympic hopeful holding up to 16 archery records at one point. During Dave’s writing career, he has written for several smaller publications as well as many major content providers such as Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, Outdoor Life, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle Shooter, Petersen’s Bowhunting, Bowhunter, Game & Fish magazines, Handguns, F.O.P Fraternal Order of Police, Archery Business, SHOT Business,, and others. Dave is currently a staff writer for Cheaper Than Dirt!

View all articles by Dave Dolbee

Tags: , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (64)

  • John


    Our Constitution provides for succession but not for rejection.


  • Andrew


    While the case may dictate that no ‘out of state’ Ammo may be brought in, that’s exactly what I would plan to do if I lived in CA. No other state has an ID requirement to buy ammo so a 2-hr drive to Yuma or Havasu or Reno gets you to a anonymous Ammo purchase. If I lived out West, I’d be starting a ammunition warehouse in Yuma.


  • Mark Are


    Well, now…I suspect that a new black market of underground ammo sales will spring up in the most Communist state of all the states. How much ammo? As much as you can AFFORD. It will be great for barter when the people rise up and destroy the existing government of California. Save ammo on the politicians through. Just hang them. TRAITORS.


  • Shadow


    does Proposition 63 have anything on reloading supplies/materials if not then learn how to reload.
    Before spending money on a glock check for something that will be more sturdy and will last longer and can take any ammo in the correct caliber, you are not supposed to fire lead out of the glock polygon rifling that would restrict you from using any cast lead ammo or casting your own.


  • Gary


    Californians need to stock up on ammo? No, they need to move to a better state!!


    • Frank R


      @ Gary, I totally agree with you, those who believe in our great constitution as it stands should leave Cal. It seems the government in California believes they are above the Constitution and what it stands for. They thumb their noses up at those our forefathers believing they are better then them. They say that the constitution is out of date because our forefathers couldn’t possibly have for seen the future and therefor they are wrong. What they are truly afraid of is the people telling the government what to do. But then again we are dealing with Libs and Dems their mentality is if you disagree with them then you are the enemy. And then they say they have to make laws to protect us from ourselves. NOT…


  • Auggie will


    They are unable to stop drugs from entering the state and I have a news flash for them “They will not be able to stop the Ammo from coming in”.
    It’s all a forest.
    The legislators want the people there to think they are keeping them safe and in turn, they get to keep their nice high paying jobs with all the bennies.


  • Juanito Ibañez


    Interesting to note that The Peoples Socialistiк Яepubliк of Кalifornistan requires a state-issued photo ID to purchase firearms and ammunition — but not to cast a vote in local, state and/or federal elections.


  • Gunwrites


    Are the hired guns(bodyguards) of the Hollywood elite exempt from the magazine ban because they’re “professionals” and their clients are considered Gods?


  • Gunwrites


    Not that anyone in Sacramento, San Francisco, or Lost Angels could give a damn, but I have decided no further vacations to the California coast and not more mail order products from CA vendors. My impact will be small. However, I am one of many. No worries, your lawmakers will raise your taxes to cover any lost revenue and benefits to illegals will likely increase. Priorities, priorities! (FOOLS, FOOLS).


  • Firewagon


    There is no hope for Kalifornicaton. Until those areas outside SF and LA secede and become their own state, those ‘normal’ folk can not have an impact on the voting process! Same would be true if the Electoral College were done away with; our elections would be run/won by CA(metro) and NY(metro) voting. The state definitely needs splitting!


    • Doug


      Firewagon- You hit the nail on the head. This law as with the others was decided by the city centers of LA, SF and Sacramento. The outliers just have to suck it up because of what the liberal communist/socialists think is best for everyone. If the state enacted electoral college type voting I doubt this would happen. It is exactly why we should never allow popular voting to decide federal elections. I would add that the media is complicit in misinforming the citizens about the effects and functions of their lawmakers. If the San Andres fault line were to cast the cities into the sea like Sodom and Gomorrah there would be a much different vote on such “Propositions”.


Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: