Despite the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruling California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases to be unconstitutional, gun owners in the Golden State are still having to live with the onerous provision.
On July 24, the court ruled in the case Rhode v. Bonta that the ammo background check law violated the Second Amendment’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms, and affirmed a district court’s order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law.
In the ruling, the 9th Circuit determined that the background check requirement regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, because it meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms. Additionally, the court concluded that the background check regime is inconsistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation since no such law or analogous law was ever enacted before the twentieth century.
The ruling prompted several mail-order ammunition retailers to announce that they were once again shipping to California customers. But that plan was quickly scuttled by anti-gun state Attorney General Rob Bonta, who announced he plans to continue enforcing the law until the Ninth Circuit specifically tells him to stop.
“On July 24, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals—in Rhode v. Bonta—issued its opinion finding that California’s ammunition background check regime is unconstitutional and affirmed the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction,” the California DOJ statement read. “However, before that opinion and permanent injunction may take effect, there are a number of procedural steps that must take place, including that the Ninth Circuit must issue its mandate, which would render the decision final and transfer the jurisdiction back to the district court. Currently, none of those procedural steps have been taken. Accordingly, California’s background check requirements for ammunition purchases remain in effect and should continue to be followed by dealers/sellers until further notice.”
Of course, AG Bonta is likely just following instructions from California Gov. Gavin Newsom, one of the most anti-gun governors in the nation. After the 9th Circuit Court ruling, Newsom spoke disdainfully about the decision.
“Today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”
Of course, just because a law was voted on by “the people” doesn’t mean it is not constitutional. Perhaps both Newsom and Bonta will realize that sometime soon, and California gun owners can once again buy their ammunition in the same manner every other gun owner in the United States does.
So, what happens next? An update posted at calgunlawyers.com explained the current situation and upcoming timeline very well.
“Even though the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the new rule letting you buy ammo without background checks isn’t in place yet,” the update stated. “Here’s why: the court’s decision needs an official ‘go-ahead’ called a mandate. Think of the mandate like a final stamp of approval from the appeals court to the lower court, saying, ‘Okay, make this happen.’ This step usually takes about 21 days after the ruling—around August 14, 2025—unless someone asks for a redo or a delay.”
ca gov. newscum is a nazi minded self serving Gun Control democRat pos who will leave you and yours defenseless against the likes of a knife wielding Walmart shopper.
Gav Boy and Bonta will drag this out as long as they can get away with. They truly get off on humiliating and denying gun owners their rights.
The same ‘Californians’ had opportunity to recall Newsom and failed to vote in favor. Therefore live with the consequences.
Rash stupid comment you don’t live here you just talk trash unless you know what we are going through shut your mouth we didn’t vote for him the liberals who outnumber us did…….you’re just as bad as them…..we will live it I guess.
It’s not WHO votes it’s WHO COUNTS THE VOTES. We overwhelmingly had the signatures and votes.
Dear Attorney General Bondi,
We here in CA are living without constitutional rights. Our government simply ignores them.
We have no hope in our legislature, its a supermajority, and they will not do anything to protect our rights, they simply do not care.
We have no hope in the executive branch, it is usually an ideological leftists who has no interest in protecting our rights. Our only hope is the courts.
The courts were our last hope, and now our government ignores them as well. We work, at great time, decades, and great expense, Millions of dollars, to overturn a bill that everyone, including its authors know, not believe, but actually know, will be ruled unconstitutional. At the end of this effort, our completely corrupt legislature merely rewrites the same unconstitutional law with small changes, then presses it through the state legislature…
….rinse…..repeat.
We now, at this point, are in a crisis situation. Our government no longer cares at all what the law is.
I beg you,
File charges against our government, in any form that you can, and charge them with violation of our constitutional rights. Our government is totally and completely above the law at this point. Until that changes, This state should be considered in a state of open insurrection.
There is already an injunction in place from the lower court. Are we then free to ignore a ruling we don’t like by a federal court while we appeal that ruling to higher courts? Or did the 9th put a hold on the injunction pending their review? If it’s the latter then it seems like Bonta’s actions might have a legal basis.
The lower court order was stayed pending appeal and that stay is still in place. If it hadn’t been, we’d have been able to buy ammo off the internet like everybody else.
Technically, Bonta is correct. There is always a delay between the issuance of a decision by the Court of Appeals and the issuance of a return of the case to the trial court (called remittitur) for entry of final judgment and determination of costs. This delay permits the losing party time to petition for rehearing in the appeals court or a petition for review to the Supreme Court. The same is true of state courts. In California, the appeals decision becomes “final” after 30 days, and then there is another 30 days before remittitur issues to allow a petition for review by a higher court. I have to assume that the State will file for rehearing en banc, where the case is reheard by 10 “randomly selected” appeals judges and the chief judge of the Ninth Circuit.
I believe it is still true that EVERY case taken by the en banc panels has been decided in favor of government control, and that number is over 50. Given an unblemished record of success (to date), one has to assume that the State will seek review in this case as well.
Which is such a bummer. I miss having ammo shipped to my door, and being unable to purchase from on-line retailers.
Total B.S. If you are found NOT GUILTY in a criminal trial you can just walk out the courtroom front door. You aren’t taken back into custody and sit for days or weeks in jail waiting to be “processed” out & released.
Hey…stop trying to keep California from banning all guns and ammo! Them having those will make conquering them in an invasion from America more difficult!!!
(Sarcasm, Duly, it is a form of humor which politicians don’t perceive as funny)
The three judge panel for the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion not a judgement. The law is still in effect.
The commies in Commiefornia are gonna do their commie shit…