As of August 7, 2025, the fight over California’s ammunition background check laws just got longer. On July 24, 2025, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the state’s requirement for background checks on every ammo purchase violates the Second Amendment. This affirmed a lower court’s decision to stop enforcing those rules, paving the way for people to buy ammo without the extra hassle. But on August 7, 2025, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a petition for a rehearing “en banc“—meaning he wants a larger group of 11 judges from the Ninth Circuit to review the case all over again.
What does this mean in plain English? The panel’s ruling is on pause. The court’s “mandate” (the official order making the decision final and sending it back to the lower court) won’t happen until the en banc request is decided. That could take weeks or months just to figure out if they’ll even hear it. If they do grant en banc review, arguments might not happen until late 2025 or early 2026, and a new decision could flip the panel’s ruling. For now, California’s 2019 ammo laws—including background checks for each purchase—stay in full effect. Gun owners and sellers have to keep following them, or they could face penalties. This delay is a win for the state, keeping the status quo while they fight to save the law.
“En banc” is a French term meaning “on the bench,” and in the Ninth Circuit, it refers to a rehearing of a case by a larger panel of 11 judges (the chief judge plus 10 randomly selected active judges) instead of the usual three-judge panel. This process is used for cases involving questions of exceptional importance, to maintain uniformity in the court’s decisions, or to resolve conflicts with other rulings. It’s essentially a second look by more judges to ensure the original panel didn’t get it wrong on big issues. En banc reviews are quite rare overall—in 2024, the Ninth Circuit received 625 petitions for en banc rehearing but granted only nine, a success rate of about 1.4%.
Historically, the court has granted even fewer in some years, like 12 out of 972 petitions in 2003 (around 1.2%). However, in Second Amendment cases where a three-judge panel strikes down a gun law as unconstitutional, the Ninth Circuit has been more willing to grant en banc review—often to reverse the panel and uphold the restriction. Since 2008 (post-Heller), there have been at least four such cases granted en banc review when a panel ruled a gun law unconstitutional, indicating a higher frequency (about 25% of relevant panel decisions) compared to the overall grant rate, reflecting the court’s sensitivity to gun control issues.
The process starts with a vote: After a petition for en banc rehearing is filed, all non-recused active judges on the Ninth Circuit (currently 29) vote on whether to grant the review. A majority vote is needed to proceed. If granted, the en banc panel isn’t the full court—it’s a “limited en banc” unique to the Ninth Circuit, consisting of the Chief Judge (currently Mary H. Murguia) and 10 other active judges randomly selected by lot from the remaining active judges. Senior judges are not eligible to participate in this panel. The selected panel then hears arguments (if ordered) and decides the case, potentially issuing a new opinion that supersedes the original panel’s ruling.
The Ninth Circuit has a track record of taking Second Amendment cases en banc, often reversing pro-gun panel decisions. Here’s a look at some key ones:
Peruta v. County of San Diego (2016): This case challenged California’s “may-issue” system for concealed carry permits, where sheriffs could deny permits without good cause, arguing it violated the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public. At the time of the en banc petition, the three-judge panel had ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, striking down the restrictive policy as unconstitutional. However, the en banc court reversed that decision, holding that there’s no Second Amendment right to concealed carry and upholding the law. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2017, letting the en banc ruling stand until Bruen clarified the standard for CCWs.
Young v. Hawaii (2021): This lawsuit targeted Hawaii’s strict limits on open carry licenses, claiming they infringed on the Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home. The panel initially sided with the plaintiff, finding a constitutional right to open carry for self-defense. The en banc court overturned that, ruling that states can heavily regulate open carry and affirming the law’s validity. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 2021, but after the 2022 Bruen decision, it vacated the en banc ruling and sent it back for reconsideration—though the Ninth Circuit ultimately dismissed it without changing the outcome.
Duncan v. Bonta (2021 and 2025): The case contested California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (over 10 rounds), saying it burdened the Second Amendment right to self-defense. In 2021, the panel struck down the ban in favor of the plaintiffs, but the en banc court reversed, upholding the restriction as constitutional under pre-Bruen standards. The Supreme Court vacated and remanded after Bruen in 2022. On remand, the district court again ruled for plaintiffs, but in a second round in March 2025, the Ninth Circuit upheld the ban once more, rejecting the challenge. As of August 2025, a Supreme Court petition is pending, with extensions granted for filing.
United States v. Duarte (2025): This involved an as-applied challenge to the federal felon-in-possession law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)), where a defendant with non-violent felonies argued it violated his Second Amendment rights post-Bruen. The panel ruled in his favor, finding the law unconstitutional as applied to him. The en banc court reversed in May 2025, upholding the conviction and the law’s broad application. A Supreme Court petition extension was granted in July 2025, so it’s still pending review.
The composition of the Ninth Circuit plays a big role in en banc outcomes. As of July 30, 2025, the court has 29 active judges. 16 were appointed by Democratic presidents (Joe Biden: 8, Barack Obama: 6, Bill Clinton: 2) and 13 by Republican presidents (Donald Trump: 10, George W. Bush: 2, George H.W. Bush: 1). For an 11-judge en banc panel, judges are randomly selected from the active pool. The probability of drawing a Republican-appointed judge versus a Democrat-appointed judge depends on this 13:16 ratio. The odds of a panel having a majority (6 or more) of Republican-appointed judges are about 35%. This slight Democrat lean, combined with the court’s historical bias toward upholding gun laws, suggests en banc panels are more likely to favor California’s position.
Looking at the pattern, the Ninth Circuit often grants en banc review in Second Amendment cases where a panel sides with gun rights plaintiffs, and the larger court usually reverses to uphold restrictions—like in Peruta, Young, Duncan, and Duarte. This favors California, as en banc panels tend to lean liberal and pro-regulation.
Since the 2021 Duncan en banc the court’s makeup has shifted further: Eight new judges have joined, mostly appointed by President Biden. This strengthens the majority that has historically supported gun control laws, or better stated restricted the plain meaning of the Second Amendment. Given the 60% chance of a Democrat-majority panel and the court’s track record (reversing pro-gun rulings in 100% of the cited cases), if en banc is granted (a 25% chance given past gun law reversals), the court will likely overturn the panel’s decision and uphold the ammo background checks by early 2026.
Even if denied, the state could appeal to the Supreme Court, but SCOTUS has been selective post-Bruen, often denying cert unless there’s a clear circuit split. Overall, odds are the laws stay in place, with a full reversal probable—delaying relief for gun owners. Keep watching the Ninth Circuit docket for updates on the en banc vote.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.