The full Ninth Circuit will reconsider a lower court ruling that struck down California’s ammunition background check requirements.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reinstated California’s ammunition background check law, setting aside earlier rulings that found the statute unconstitutional. In a brief order, the court granted a rehearing en banc in Rhode v. Bonta, which vacates both a federal district court injunction and a three-judge panel’s decision striking down the law.
Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode and other plaintiffs filed the challenge in 2018, targeting key provisions of Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1235. Those measures banned home delivery for online ammunition purchases, barred residents from bringing in lawfully purchased ammo from out of state, and imposed a background check on every over-the-counter ammunition sale.
Plaintiffs argued the system was riddled with delays, false denials, and administrative failures that prevented law-abiding gun owners from purchasing ammunition. Earlier this year, a federal judge agreed and issued a permanent injunction blocking the state from enforcing the law.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc means an 11-judge panel will now determine whether the restrictions survive under the Bruen historical standard. Chief Judge Mary Murguia will lead the panel. Of the court’s 29 active judges, 16 were appointed by Democratic administrations and 13 by Republican administrations.
Our Take
California’s ammunition background check system has never demonstrated measurable public-safety benefits, but it has repeatedly blocked lawful gun owners from buying a box of ammo. The state designed a process so convoluted that it routinely denied people who passed full firearm background checks the week before. When a federal court finally stepped in to stop the mess, the Ninth Circuit pulled the emergency brake.
A rehearing en banc is not surprising given the court’s ideological makeup. Still, the underlying problem remains: California is trying to regulate ammunition purchases in a way that has no historical precedent and no proven utility.
The Bruen standard demands more than bureaucratic wish-casting; whether this 11-judge panel accepts that reality will determine whether millions of Californians get relief from a system that treats ammunition purchases as a privilege rather than a protected component of the right to keep and bear arms.
- California Still Enforcing Ammo Background Check Law After 9th Circuit Court Ruling
- Ammunition Depot Update: California Ammo Sales Still Blocked After Ninth Circuit Win Put on Ice
- How the DOJ Should Target All of California’s Unconstitutional Anti-Gun Laws
- California’s Latest “Gun Safety” Law Targets Legal Gun Owners, Not Criminals
The federal government should refuse database info to support California “ammo ” checks… must be for firearms only as intended…Or tax the State for using the system..
RE: “The Ninth Circuit’s decision to rehear the case en banc means an 11-judge panel will now determine whether the restrictions survive under the Bruen historical standard.”
When are the so called Defenders of the 2A going to tell politicians, courts and the public 98% of historical regulations are rooted in Racism, Discrimination, etc? To protect the 2A any historical regulation found to be connected in any way with discrimination should be declared null and void.
Unfortunately by all accounts silent gun owners must be content with being called, racist, nazi, fascists by useful idiots who worship gun control. The labels are left unchecked and free to permeate America all while History Confirms Gun Control is the sole property of racists, nazis, fascists, etc.
Gun Control adoring democRats who libel and slander those exercising a Constitutional Right need to know they are exactly what they claim to disdain…Their love for Gun Control proves it simply because History shows only rascists, nazis, fascists and the like could adore Gun Control.
CA has their own system in place for background checks
Asdf,
Yeah, but it relies on the Federal NICS system. KKKalifornia will continue to be an anti-gun, Leftist sh*thole until it collapses under the weight of its own stupidity and wokeness. And I say that as a native KKKalifornian. GTF out when it became obvious that the government of KKKalifornia wasn’t sustainable. Waiting for it to crash and burn so I can go back and buy up some nice property in the most beautiful state in the country (physically), once the idiots in Sacramento have admitted their total failure.
Guess: they’ll just deny all purchases for for which background checks would rely on federal resources, and blame it on the feds. Good all the way around for them.
The only thing good that happened for California was the dust bowl in Oklahoma.
California needs Moore.
F5’s are pretty.
robe-******* & ammo-checking, suck dick
badge/robe/lawyer/politician ******* @ any level do not give me “permissions”
Mighty strong talk there fuah. –and good for you-
Out of curiosity how many years have you served incarcerated?
I’ve found disregarding the laws set forth by politicians, enforced by law enforcement, prosecuted by lawyers, sentenced by judges, normally incarcerates when disregarding their permissions.
none, asshole
****** assholes in gubmint do not give me commands
any ******* asshole faster than lead is welcome to try
I do miss in your face fedposting. Thank you and please do your best to not get V@ed as it does make a lot of responses and thoughts more fun and productive.
Commifornia is hopeless as far as individual and firearm freedoms. If you care about freedom and firearms, you HAVE to leave it, it’s done.
City slickers…
http://youtube.com/post/UgkxS9VBLLk52_Dtnt1F8erKHrC4cj6-4IEI?si=lDsRpOxcO9uAkptA
No surprises here; en banc is always granted to review any and all pro-gun cases. There won’t be any surprises on the outcome either: the background check system will be found to be constitutional. The most interesting part of its ultimate decision will be the dissents; they have become increasingly strident as time passes, since 100% of all en banc cases have affirmed gun law restrictions.
The federal government can still deny them any use of NCIC for a check not defined in Brady..
It is a “mini” “instant” background check to see if the individual, after presenting a Firearms Safety Certificate and a D/L, has any disqualifying offenses on record in California as well as proof of the registration of at least one firearm (any caliber) with the Ca DOJ. So I am not sure that it involves a NICS check.
If you are from out of state, you get a full blown background check with NICS AND a 10 day wait.
Mark N.,
Yeah, they do. KKKalifornia FFLs generally run NICS checks as part of ammo purchases. More importantly, the ENTIRE purpose of the ‘ammo check’ regime is to make it more difficult/expensive for law-abiding gun owners to simply buy ammunition. It doesn’t affect the real scumbags, because they buy ammunition (and guns) on the black market.
Start locking up scumbag, @$$hole gang bangers, and KEEPING them in jail. I guaran-freakin’ promise you that crime will go down.
This isn’t effin’ rocket math.
Similar law and setup in NY but your challenge is much farther along so see how it goes and what we can use/plan for.
California it’s time for civil disobedience…Voter fraud has taken all of your freedom..The ammo black market needs to take over..
Won’t happen it would be to easy to blow speed boats apart in Arizona.
robe-*******, gtfo of 2A & stay out
Once this is settled I want a class action case to give everyone their background check fees back.
don’t suck atf/fbi dick, buy privately
How does any of this affect those who know how build and power all kinds of weapons, after all where did they get started in the first place. Until free thinking is ended there will always be ways of self defense against few or many, it all rests on the individual, controlled by the character, good or bad.
The effect, on non-effect of gun laws on criminal behavior is a statistical joke. Just as gun grabbers cannot prove that gun control saves lives, neither can 2A supporters claim that violent crime reductions are solely, or largely, due to wide-spread gun possession; simply too many variables to consider. DC cop house is a case in point. Both sides of the argument can claim credit for crime reduction statistics based on official mischaracterizing, the reported instances.