Victory! 9th Circuit Delivers Crushing Blow to California’s Ammunition Background Check Scheme

Another day, another California gun control law bites the dust. In a resounding victory for Second Amendment rights, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered what can only be described as a knockout punch to California’s draconian ammunition background check requirements in Rhode v. Bonta. This July 24th ruling represents yet another domino falling in California’s crumbling gun control empire—and frankly, it’s about time.

The End of California’s Ammunition Control Scheme

The 2-1 decision by the 9th Circuit permanently blocks enforcement of California’s first-in-the-nation ammunition background check law, which required residents to undergo background checks for every single ammunition purchase. Let me be clear: this wasn’t just any background check system—this was a comprehensive scheme designed to make exercising your Second Amendment rights as burdensome and expensive as possible.

Under this now-defunct law, California gun owners were forced to:

• Complete background checks costing between $1-$19 before each ammunition purchase
• Conduct all transactions face-to-face with licensed ammunition vendors
• Submit to various waiting periods and approval requirements
• Abandon any hope of ordering ammunition online like free Americans in other states

The law also prohibited California residents from purchasing ammunition out of state and bringing it home—because apparently, the constitutional right to keep and bear arms stops at state lines in the minds of California legislators.

Why This Ruling Matters

What makes this decision particularly satisfying is that the court applied the proper constitutional framework established by the Supreme Court’s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Bruen standard requires courts to determine whether gun laws are “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—a test that California’s modern gun control schemes consistently fail to pass.

The 9th Circuit correctly recognized that ammunition is inseparable from the right to keep and bear arms. As the court noted, “arms are inoperable without ammunition” and “the right to keep and bear arms necessarily encompasses the right to have ammunition.” This isn’t rocket science—a firearm without ammunition is just an expensive paperweight.

The court found that California’s scheme “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep and bear arms by imposing fees, delays, and bureaucratic hurdles on every ammunition transaction statewide. When the state tried to justify these restrictions by pointing to historical analogues, they came up empty-handed. The court systematically dismantled California’s attempts to find historical precedent for their modern ammunition control scheme.

Part of a Winning Streak

This victory doesn’t exist in isolation. The 9th Circuit has been on a remarkable streak of striking down California’s unconstitutional gun laws. Just recently, we’ve seen:

• California’s gun advertising ban struck down as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment (read our coverage here)
• California’s “one gun a month” law was demolished under the Second Amendment (our analysis here)

The pattern is clear: when California’s gun control laws face proper constitutional scrutiny under the Bruen standard, they crumble like a house of cards. This isn’t surprising to those of us who have long recognized these laws for what they truly are—unconstitutional infringements designed to frustrate the exercise of fundamental rights.

The Immediate Impact

At the start of the appeal, the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s permanent injunction and that stay has not yet been lifted. Likewise, the mandate for the Ninth Circuit’s decision—which gives it the force of law—has not been issued.

The NSSF is advising manufacturers and vendors against shipping ammo direct to California residents. In their words, “NSSF reminds members that the court’s decision affirming the permanent injunction is not yet in effect and the state is likely to seek an en banc rehearing of the panel decision, which will further delay the issuance of the injunction.”

Of course, California Attorney General Rob Bonta is expected to appeal this decision and likely request a stay to temporarily reinstate these unconstitutional restrictions. But for now, California gun owners can breathe a little easier knowing that at least one aspect of their state’s war on the Second Amendment has been definitively defeated.

The Lone Dissenter Gets It Wrong

Judge Bybee’s dissent is worth noting, if only to understand how some judges still don’t grasp the fundamental nature of constitutional rights. He argued that California’s scheme imposed only “minimal burdens” and should be considered “presumptively lawful.” This completely misses the point—the burden on a constitutional right isn’t measured by its convenience to the government or its bureaucratic efficiency.

The dissent’s focus on the “$1 fee and less than one minute of delay in 99% of cases” betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how rights work. Constitutional rights aren’t subject to death by a thousand cuts, where small individual burdens somehow become acceptable because they’re not individually massive. A right delayed is a right denied, regardless of whether that delay is measured in minutes or hours.

What This Means Going Forward

This decision represents more than just a victory for California gun owners—it’s a blueprint for challenging similar restrictions nationwide. The court’s analysis provides a roadmap for dismantling other ammunition control schemes and reinforces the principle that the Second Amendment means what it says.

The fact that this decision came from the notoriously liberal 9th Circuit makes it even more significant. When even the 9th Circuit is striking down gun control laws, you know the constitutional tide has turned.