California's Ammunition Background Check Law Gets Second Life

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hit the reset button on California's ammunition background check case on December 1, vacating a July ruling that struck down the state's restrictive ammunition laws and ordering the case reheard by an 11-judge en banc panel.

For California gun owners who've been dealing with these restrictions since 2019, this means the background check requirement for every ammunition purchase isn't going anywhere soon. The law stays in effect while the full panel reconsiders the case, with oral arguments scheduled for March 2026.

What Just Happened

On December 1, Chief Judge Mary Murguia signed an order granting California Attorney General Rob Bonta's petition for en banc review. The order was short and to the point: "Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40(c) and Circuit Rule 40-3. The three-judge panel opinion is vacated."

That three-judge panel opinion from July had been a rare win for Second Amendment advocates in the Ninth Circuit. Judges Sandra Ikuta and Bridget Bade ruled 2-1 that California's ammunition background check regime violated the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court's Bruen framework, finding no historical analogue for requiring a background check every single time someone wants to buy ammunition.

Unfortunately, that victory lasted just over four months.

The Case Background

If you haven't been following along, here's the situation. In 2016, California voters passed Proposition 63, which established a background check requirement for ammunition purchases. The law went into effect in 2019 and requires:

• Background checks for every ammunition purchase (not just your first one, but every single time)
• Face-to-face purchases through licensed dealers only
• A prohibition on bringing ammunition purchased out of state into California

The lawsuit challenging these restrictions, Rhode v. Bonta, was filed back in 2018 by Olympic shooting champion Kim Rhode and several other plaintiffs, including ammunition retailers and the California Rifle & Pistol Association. San Diego federal judge Roger Benitez has ruled twice that the law violates the Second Amendment—once in 2020, and again in January 2024 after the Supreme Court's Bruen  decision reset the framework for evaluating gun laws.

We've been covering this saga since the beginning. Back in 2017, we looked at what these new ammunition laws would mean for California gun owners. A few months later, we reported on data showing ammunition sales had dropped nearly 50% under the initial restrictions. When the background check requirements actually took effect in 2019, we documented the problems gun owners were facing. By 2020, when Judge Benitez first struck down the law, he found the system had blocked sales to law-abiding citizens about 16% of the time.

What the July Panel Opinion Said

The three-judge panel's now-vacated opinion, issued July 24, 2025, applied the two-step test from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. First, they found that ammunition background checks implicate the Second Amendment's text because, as Judge Ikuta wrote, "arms are inoperable without ammunition." The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to have ammunition—otherwise you're just collecting paperweights.

Second, they found California couldn't show that this type of regulation was consistent with America's historical tradition of firearms regulation. The state pointed to various historical laws, but none of them required repeated background checks every time someone wanted to buy ammunition. The panel found the law "meaningfully constrains California residents' right to keep and bear arms" through the combination of fees, delays, and the sheer scope of transactions it covers.

Judge Jay Bybee dissented, arguing that the background checks—which he characterized as taking only about a minute and costing a dollar—don't meaningfully burden Second Amendment rights.

The Ninth Circuit's En Banc Record

Here's where things get predictable. The Ninth Circuit has a well-established pattern of using en banc review to overturn pro-Second Amendment panel decisions. In March 2025, an 11-judge en banc panel reversed a ruling that struck down California's large-capacity magazine ban in Duncan v. Bonta. The court has upheld numerous California gun control measures when rehearing cases en banc.

Twenty-nine active judges serve on the Ninth Circuit, and a majority voted to grant this en banc review. The 11-judge panel that will hear the case will consist of Chief Judge Murguia plus 10 other active judges selected randomly. Given the Ninth Circuit's composition and recent history, it's not hard to predict how this will likely go.

What This Means for California Gun Owners

The practical effect is simple: California's ammunition background check requirements stay in place. You still need to pass a background check every time you want to buy ammunition. You still can't have ammo shipped directly to your home. You still can't bring ammunition you purchased out of state back into California without going through a licensed dealer.

The law isn't changing until this case works its way through the en banc process, which won't be quick. Oral arguments are scheduled for the week of March 23, 2026, in Pasadena. After that, it could be months before a decision. And depending on how that goes, the case could end up at the Supreme Court—though California might prefer to take the loss rather than risk a nationwide precedent if the en banc panel doesn't go their way.

In the meantime, California ammunition dealers continue operating under the same restrictions they have since 2019, and gun owners continue dealing with the associated hassle and expense.

The Bigger Picture

This case is worth watching not just for California gun owners, but because it raises fundamental questions about how Bruen's "text, history, and tradition" test applies to ammunition regulations. If the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, what about the ammunition those arms require to function? Can states impose transaction-by-transaction barriers to exercising that right?

The three-judge panel said no. We'll see what the full panel says in 2026.

For now, if you live in California and want to buy ammunition, bring your ID, be prepared to wait, and hope the background check system doesn't flag you as a prohibited person when you're not. Because this law isn't going anywhere for a while.

Disclaimer: This article discusses ongoing litigation and legal developments. It is not legal advice, and nothing in this article should be construed as legal advice. If you have specific questions about how California's ammunition laws apply to your situation, consult a qualified attorney licensed in California. The legal landscape around Second Amendment issues is constantly evolving, and individual circumstances vary. When in doubt about what's legal, talk to a lawyer who actually knows California firearms law—not a blog post on the internet.