9th Circuit Panel Hears Arguments on California Ammo Background Checks
The Ninth Circuit's eleven-judge en banc panel heard oral arguments on Wednesday in Rhode v. Bonta, the case challenging California's requirement that gun owners pass a background check for every single ammunition purchase. The arguments took place in Pasadena — the last step before the en banc panel issues a ruling that could either restore or permanently strike down the law.
If you missed how we got here: a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel struck down California's ammo restrictions in July 2025, applying the Bruen text-and-history test. California pushed for en banc review, got it, and the background check requirement stayed in effect during the appeal. TFB covered the en banc grant back in December.
The stakes are real for California gun owners who've been living under the law since 2019. Every trip to the gun counter requires a $1 background check fee, a real-time database query, and the hassle of buying only through California-licensed dealers: Banning direct online purchases and transfers from out-of-state retailers.
The legal question is whether California can point to a historical analog from the Founding era that justifies making gun owners prove eligibility every time they buy ammunition. The NRA and California Rifle & Pistol Association argue no such analog exists. The U.S. DOJ and a coalition of 25 states filed amicus briefs on the gun owners' side, an unusually broad level of support that signals how the current administration views the case.
The en banc panel's composition matters. The Ninth Circuit has historically been hostile to Second Amendment challenges, but Bruen changed the analytical framework, and three-judge panels have been striking down restrictions. Whether a full eleven-judge panel does the same, or reverses course, remains the question.
A ruling could come anywhere from a few months to a year after argument. For now, California's ammo background check remains in effect.
Josh is the Editor in Chief of The Firearm Blog, as well as AllOutdoor and OutdoorHub.
More by Josh C
![[SHOT 2026] 80% Is Back - The G80 Pistol Build Kits](https://cdn-fastly.thefirearmblog.com/media/2026/01/22/20171/post.jpg?size=350x220)
Comments
Join the conversation
These are largely the same restrictions we suffer under here, in New York. I’m hopeful that the 9th Circuit rules correctly (given Bruen, they should have no choice) and that it leads to yet another defeat for the imperiousness of Albany. Every time I buy ammunition, the background check comes back with a hold. That’s usually lifted within 24 hours. But how, if I buy ammunition multiple times per year in New York, can it always come back that way?
But when are we gonna hold those politicians responsible who push these laws anyways, knowing they aren't constitutional, simply because they take so long to get sorted out by the courts? Not to mention the ones that ignore the courts straight up.
I think if lawmakers can be shown trying to create and then vote for laws that are intentionally malicious to the constitution, they should be held personally responsible for basically acting like criminals. Yes, I realize this would require a framework to prevent certain things, but the general idea I'm presenting is sound. Tell your friends!