Rhode v. Bonta is a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of California’s ammunition sales restrictions, specifically the background check requirements established under Proposition 63 (2016) and subsequent legislative amendments. The plaintiffs, including Olympic gold medalist shooter Kim Rhode, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), and several ammunition vendors, argued that these laws violated the Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and were preempted by federal law (Page 19). The case was heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California (Case No. 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB) and appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Case No. 24-542) (Page 1).
California’s ammunition laws, effective since July 1, 2019, required all ammunition purchases to be conducted through licensed vendors in face-to-face transactions, with a background check mandated for each purchase (Pages 8-9, Cal. Penal Code §§ 30312, 30370). Purchasers in the state’s Automated Firearms System (AFS) paid a $1 fee per transaction, while others faced a $19 fee for a Basic Ammunition Eligibility Check or a $22 fee for a Certificate of Eligibility, which required annual renewal and fingerprinting (Pages 10-13). Additionally, the law prohibited bringing out-of-state ammunition into California without first delivering it to a licensed vendor (Page 14, Cal. Penal Code § 30314).
On July 24, 2025, a divided Ninth Circuit panel, in an opinion authored by Judge Sandra S. Ikuta and joined by Judge Bridget S. Bade, with a dissent by Judge Jay S. Bybee, affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction against enforcing California’s ammunition background check provisions (Cal. Penal Code §§ 30352, 30370(a)-(e)) (Pages 4, 20, 54). The court applied the two-step framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (597 U.S. 1, 2022) to evaluate the Second Amendment challenge (Page 3).
The panel held that California’s background check regime implicated the Second Amendment’s plain text because it “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear operable arms, which includes the right to acquire ammunition (Pages 22-23, 31). The court cited precedents like Heller (554 U.S. 570, 2008) and Teixeira v. County of Alameda (873 F.3d 670, 2017), emphasizing that ammunition is essential for rendering firearms operable (Pages 22, 29-30). The regime’s requirements, including fees, delays, and mandatory in-person transactions, were deemed to impose significant burdens on this right (Pages 26-27, 30-31).
Under Bruen’s second step, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, focusing on the periods around the Second Amendment’s adoption (1791) and the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification (1868) (Page 24). California proffered several historical analogues, including loyalty oaths, concealed carry restrictions, surety laws, and vendor licensing requirements from the Founding and Reconstruction eras (Pages 32-45). The panel rejected these as insufficiently analogous, noting that none required repeated background checks for ammunition purchases or imposed similar burdens on ordinary citizens (Pages 34-35, 38, 41-43). The court concluded that California failed to meet its burden, rendering the background check regime unconstitutional (Page 46).
Judge Bybee dissented, arguing that the majority misapplied Bruen by not recognizing California’s regime as a “presumptively lawful” shall-issue licensing scheme, as suggested in Bruen’s footnote 9 (Pages 55-57, 69-70). He emphasized that most checks cost $1 and take less than a minute, imposing minimal burdens (Page 67). Bybee also addressed the plaintiffs’ Commerce Clause and preemption claims, concluding that the face-to-face requirement did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause and that federal law (18 U.S.C. § 926A) did not preempt California’s prohibition on importing out-of-state ammunition (Pages 74-79).
The ruling declared California’s requirement for background checks before each ammunition purchase unconstitutional, affirming the district court’s permanent injunction against enforcing Cal. Penal Code §§ 30352 and 30370(a)-(e) (Page 54). If the injunction takes effect, California residents would no longer need to undergo background checks for each ammunition purchase, potentially simplifying the process and reducing associated costs and delays. However, the ruling does not affect the face-to-face transaction requirement or the prohibition on importing out-of-state ammunition without delivery to a licensed vendor, as these were not addressed by the majority (Pages 4, 74-79).
There is February 5, 2024, stay order, which must be addressed. It clarified that the district court’s initial injunction was paused, and the absence of information in the July 24, 2025, or other sources confirming the stay’s termination suggests it remains in effect post the July 24, 2025, ruling. Therefore, California’s ammunition background check requirements are still in place, and the cessation of these checks is not immediate. Dealers ad advised to wait for the Ninth Circuit to issue its mandate, which would likely occur around August 14, 2025, unless delayed by a continued or new stay, an en banc review, or a Supreme Court appeal.
The likelihood of the Ninth Circuit granting a stay or reversing the ruling through an en banc review is significant, based on historical patterns and recent en banc decisions. The Ninth Circuit has a history of staying district court rulings that strike down California’s gun control laws. For example:
The Ninth Circuit’s en banc panels have consistently upheld California’s firearm regulations in recent years, with Duncan v. Bonta noting 60 consecutive pro-gun control rulings since Heller (2008). The court’s en banc composition, often leaning toward judges appointed by Democratic presidents, has favored gun control measures, as seen in the 7-4 party-line vote in Duncan. Given this precedent, California Attorney General Rob Bonta is likely to request an en banc review, indicate expectations of such an appeal. The state’s history of successfully obtaining stays, combined with the Ninth Circuit’s tendency to uphold gun control laws en banc, suggests a high likelihood that the Rhode v. Bonta ruling could be stayed or reversed if taken up en banc.
However, the Bruen framework, which requires historical analogues for modern regulations, poses a challenge for California, as the majority found no such analogues for repeated ammunition background checks (Pages 46-47). The Supreme Court’s increasing scrutiny of gun control laws, as evidenced by Bruen and Rahimi (602 U.S. 680, 2024), may limit the Ninth Circuit’s ability to diverge significantly from the panel’s reasoning unless new historical evidence is presented (Page 50). If the case reaches the Supreme Court, the outcome could hinge on whether California can identify closer historical analogues – which is unlikely due to their failure to date.
Rhode v. Bonta represents a significant victory for Second Amendment advocates, with the Ninth Circuit ruling on July 24, 2025, that California’s ammunition background check regime violates the Second Amendment. If implemented, the ruling would eliminate the need for background checks for each ammunition purchase, easing restrictions for California gun owners. However, the ruling’s immediate effect is uncertain due to a likely existing stay and the absence of a mandate. Given the Ninth Circuit’s history of staying and reversing similar rulings en banc, particularly in cases like Duncan v. Bonta, there is a strong likelihood that the ruling will be stayed or overturned if appealed en banc. The case’s trajectory, potentially toward the Supreme Court, underscores the ongoing tension between California’s gun control policies and Second Amendment protections.
As such, licensed Firearm and Ammunition Dealers are advised to continue with the background checks until such time as the February 2, 2025, stay is officially lifted.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.