California’s ammo background check law was overturned by a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel on July 24, 2025, but the requirement is still being enforced. California’s Attorney General filed a petition for rehearing on August 7, 2025, and federal appellate rules keep the panel’s decision from taking effect while that petition is pending. If you are buying ammunition in California today, you still have to pass a Department of Justice eligibility check through a licensed vendor.
What You Still Have to Do at the Counter
Every ammunition sale or transfer in California must go through a licensed vendor, and the buyer has to clear a DOJ eligibility check before the vendor can hand over the ammunition. The DOJ runs your information against databases covering criminal history, mental health prohibitions, restraining orders, and outstanding warrants to confirm you can legally possess ammunition.
Bring a valid California driver’s license or state-issued ID with your current address. The vendor submits your name, date of birth, address, and ID number to the DOJ’s electronic system and cannot complete the sale until the DOJ approves it. If your current information already matches a record in the state’s firearms database from a prior purchase, approval can come back quickly for a lower fee. If there’s no matching record, the DOJ runs a more thorough manual review that costs more and can take several business days.
The law also bars California residents from bringing ammunition purchased out of state into California unless it first ships to a licensed vendor here for the same eligibility screening. That is why direct online ammunition orders to California addresses have not been a workable option. Some online retailers briefly tried to resume shipping to California customers after the July ruling, but those orders were reportedly canceled once it became clear the law remained enforceable.
Why the Law Is Still in Force After Being Struck Down
The ruling came out of Rhode v. Bonta, a Second Amendment challenge to the background check regime. A federal district court had already issued a permanent injunction blocking enforcement, but California appealed and obtained a stay, which kept the law operating during the appeal. That stay never lifted.
When the Ninth Circuit panel affirmed on July 24, 2025, California had the option to seek rehearing by the full court. Attorney General Rob Bonta filed that petition on August 7, 2025, asking an eleven-judge en banc panel to reconsider the case. Under standard federal appellate procedure, the panel’s mandate does not issue while a rehearing petition is pending, so the earlier stay continues to operate and licensed vendors are still required to run eligibility checks.
What the Ninth Circuit Actually Held
The panel applied the Supreme Court’s 2022 framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which asks first whether a gun regulation burdens conduct the Second Amendment protects, and second whether there is a historical tradition of similar regulations.
On the first question, the panel found that the right to keep and bear arms includes keeping those arms functional, so rules restricting ammunition acquisition implicate the Second Amendment directly. The court said the fees and processing delays built into the California system meaningfully constrained residents’ ability to obtain ammunition.
On the second question, the panel rejected the four categories of historical laws California offered as analogues, concluding that none of them resembled a system requiring government pre-approval for every ammunition transaction. On that basis the panel affirmed the permanent injunction.
What Could Change, and When
The case now sits with the Ninth Circuit on the rehearing petition. A few things can happen from here.
If the full court agrees to rehear the case en banc, the panel opinion is vacated and the case gets fresh briefing and oral argument before eleven judges. If the court denies rehearing, the panel’s decision takes effect unless California asks the Supreme Court for a stay and files a petition for certiorari. Because this is the first federal appellate decision to strike down an ammunition background check law, Supreme Court review is a realistic possibility whichever way the en banc court goes.
Until a final decision issues with no stay in place, the current system keeps running. If enforcement is ever suspended, the California DOJ will update its guidance and licensed vendors will adjust their procedures. Watching the vendor and DOJ side is more reliable than watching the headlines, because a ruling in the news does not change what happens at the register until the stay lifts.
Who Cannot Possess Ammunition Regardless of This Case
Even if the background check system is eventually dismantled, possessing ammunition remains illegal for several categories of people under both state and federal law. These prohibitions exist independently of the check mechanism and would survive any outcome in Rhode v. Bonta.
Under federal law, anyone prohibited from possessing firearms is equally prohibited from possessing ammunition. That includes people convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, anyone subject to a domestic violence restraining order, people convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence, people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution, and unlawful users of controlled substances, among others.
California layers state prohibitions on top of the federal list. Under Penal Code section 30305, anyone barred from owning firearms under California’s prohibited persons statutes is also barred from possessing ammunition or reloaded ammunition, which sweeps in categories like people subject to certain gang injunctions.
Federal Age Minimums Still Apply
A licensed dealer cannot sell rifle or shotgun ammunition to anyone under 18, and cannot sell handgun ammunition to anyone under 21. California can impose stricter rules on top, but these federal floors apply nationwide and are not affected by the Rhode v. Bonta litigation.