Rhode v. Bonta is a federal lawsuit in which a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled on July 24, 2025, that California’s ammunition background check system violates the Second Amendment.1United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Rhode v. Bonta It is the first federal appeals court decision striking down a state ammunition purchase restriction under the framework the Supreme Court set out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. The panel affirmed a permanent injunction against the state’s background check, face-to-face delivery, and personal importation rules. The injunction is not yet in effect, however, because California is expected to seek further review, and the existing rules continue to apply to ammunition buyers in the meantime.
The California Ammunition Rules at Issue
The regulations challenged in the case come from Proposition 63, the 2016 ballot initiative California voters approved to control ammunition sales.2California Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Regulations: Ammunition Purchases or Transfers Three requirements formed the heart of the lawsuit.
Under Penal Code Section 30370, the California Department of Justice must electronically approve every ammunition purchase before the buyer takes possession. Buyers already in California’s firearm records pay $5 for a standard eligibility check. Buyers who are not in the system pay $19 for a basic eligibility check that can take several days, and the resulting approval expires after 30 days.3Office of the Attorney General – State of California. Frequently Asked Questions
Penal Code Section 30312 requires every ammunition sale to happen in person through a licensed vendor. Online orders are allowed, but the shipment must be routed to a licensed dealer, and the buyer has to pick it up in person after a background check. Violating this requirement is a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in county jail, a fine of up to $1,000, or both.4California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 30312 – Other Restrictions Relating to Ammunition
Penal Code Section 30314 bars California residents from personally bringing ammunition purchased out of state into California. Any out-of-state ammunition purchase must be shipped to a licensed California vendor and picked up through the same face-to-face process. A first offense is an infraction; repeat violations can be charged as an infraction or a misdemeanor.
How the Ninth Circuit Ruled
The three-judge panel affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction in a 2-1 decision written by Judge Sandra Ikuta and joined by Judge Bridget Bade, with Judge Jay Bybee dissenting.1United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Rhode v. Bonta The court’s analysis followed the two-step test the Supreme Court adopted in Bruen in June 2022, which asks first whether the challenged conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text and, if so, whether the government can point to a historical tradition of firearm regulation that fits the modern law.5Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
On the first step, the panel found that requiring a state-approved background check for every ammunition purchase “meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms.” A firearm is functionally useless without ammunition, so restrictions on acquiring ammunition reach the core of the Second Amendment.
On the second step, the panel held that California failed to identify any historical law requiring a government eligibility check before a citizen could buy ammunition. The state pointed to colonial-era gunpowder storage laws and other founding-era restrictions, but the majority found these were not relevantly similar to a pre-purchase background check regime. The court also rejected the argument that Bruen’s approving language about “shall-issue” carry licensing extended to ammunition checks. A one-time licensing check at the outset is different in kind from a check required before every single purchase, and the cumulative burden of repeated checks, fees, and multi-day wait times pushed California’s system beyond what Bruen endorsed.
The panel affirmed Judge Roger Benitez’s February 2024 permanent injunction, which had enjoined enforcement of Sections 30352 and 30370 (background checks and vendor records tied to them), Section 30312 (face-to-face delivery), and Section 30314 (personal importation).
What California Buyers Should Do Right Now
The ruling does not change what ammunition buyers have to do today. When California appealed Judge Benitez’s decision, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay that kept all of the challenged laws in effect during the appeal, and that stay has kept the background check and face-to-face requirements enforceable throughout the litigation.6Office of the Attorney General – State of California – Department of Justice. Attorney General Bonta Issues Statement on Court Order Allowing Enforcement of Ammunition Laws During Appeal in Rhode v. Bonta
A Ninth Circuit panel decision does not take immediate effect. California has time to petition for rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit or to seek a stay from the Supreme Court, and Attorney General Rob Bonta has defended these laws at every stage.
Until the mandate issues and the injunction actually takes hold, assume the existing rules apply. Vendors are still bound by them. Buying ammunition without completing the required background check, taking shipment directly from an out-of-state retailer, or bringing ammunition into California from another state can still carry criminal penalties while the laws remain enforceable.
What Happens Next
California’s most likely next move is a petition for en banc rehearing, which would put the case before an 11-judge Ninth Circuit panel rather than the three-judge panel that decided it. If en banc review is denied or the panel decision is affirmed en banc, California can petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.
If California obtains a stay pending further review, the current background check and face-to-face requirements stay enforceable through that process. If no stay is granted and the mandate issues, the permanent injunction takes effect, and California can no longer enforce the background check provisions, the face-to-face delivery mandate, or the importation ban that the district court struck down.
The reasoning also reaches beyond California. Other states regulate ammunition sales in various ways, and the panel’s conclusion that ammunition access falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text, combined with the absence of any founding-era analogue for ammunition purchase checks, creates a difficult evidentiary problem for any state trying to defend a similar regime under Bruen.
Federal Ammunition Rules That Don’t Change
Whatever happens to California’s state-level rules, federal law independently restricts who can buy and possess ammunition, and Rhode v. Bonta does not touch those restrictions.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), certain people are prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition at all. The most common disqualifier is a prior felony conviction, which accounts for about 90% of federal prohibited-person cases.7United States Sentencing Commission. Section 922(g) Firearms Other prohibited categories include people subject to certain domestic violence protective orders, people convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors, unlawful drug users, and those adjudicated as mentally incompetent.
Federal age limits also apply at licensed dealers: 21 for handgun ammunition and 18 for rifle or shotgun ammunition.8Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 922 – Unlawful Acts And shipping is constrained: 18 U.S.C. § 1716 makes ammunition nonmailable through the U.S. Postal Service, though private carriers ship ammunition under their own hazardous materials rules.9Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 U.S. Code 1716 – Injurious Articles as Nonmailable These rules apply everywhere in the country and are unaffected by the outcome of the Rhode litigation.