July 24, 2025 – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a decision today in the case of Rhode v. Bonta affirming an injunction against a California law requiring background checks on ammunition on the basis that it violates the Second Amendment.
In 2016, California voters approved a ballot measure creating a background check regime for ammunition, including a $50 fee for a four-year ammunition permit. Legislators later amended the measure to require background checks for each ammunition purchase. In addition, California residents could not bypass face-to-face transactions with licensed vendors by purchasing ammunition in another state and bringing it into California. The ammunition background check scheme went into effect in 2019. Kim Rhode, a six-time Olympic medal winner, along with six other California residents, three out-of-state ammunition vendors, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California challenging the constitutionality of the California ammunition background check law.
The district court held a hearing on the merits of plaintiffs’ claims and subsequently entered judgment in their favor permanently enjoining California from enforcing the ammunition sales background check provisions and the ammunition anti-importation provisions. The district court concluded that California’s ammunition background check regime violated the Second Amendment and that the anti-importation provisions was also unconstitutional.
In a 2-1 decision, the Court of Appeals agreed that the law was unconstitutional and therefore the district court had not abused its discretion in issuing a permanent injunction blocking enforcement of the law. The majority opinion held that by “subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.” In arriving at this decision, the court held that ammunition is covered by the Second Amendment and that California failed to show that the law was consistent with any historical tradition of regulating ammunition, as required under New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). The decision provides persuasive support for a similar challenge to a New York law restricting the purchase of ammunition.
It is expected that California Attorney General Bonta will file a petition for rehearing en banc (a review of the decision by a larger panel of the active judges on the court of appeals).
Renzulli Law Firm will continue to monitor the challenges to this law, related litigation, and its potential impacts. If you have any questions about laws regulating the sale of firearms and ammunition, please contact John F. Renzulli or Christopher Renzulli.