Rhode v. Bonta: Ammunition Background Check Challenge

Rhode v. Bonta (originally Rhode v. Becerra) challenges the ammunition purchase restrictions enacted through Proposition 63 (2016) and implemented beginning July 1, 2019. The case has become one of the most closely watched Second Amendment cases in the Ninth Circuit, with the U.S. Department of Justice and 25 state attorneys general filing briefs supporting the challenge ^[1].

Proposition 63's Ammunition Provisions

Proposition 63, approved by California voters in November 2016, established several ammunition purchase restrictions ^[2]:

• Background checks: All ammunition purchases require a point-of-sale background check through the DOJ. Standard checks cost $1 and take minutes; non-standard checks cost $19 and take up to 10 days.
• Vendor licensing: Only licensed ammunition vendors may sell ammunition, and all sales must be conducted face-to-face through a licensed vendor.
• Online sales banned: Direct-to-consumer online and mail-order ammunition sales are prohibited. Online purchases must be shipped to a licensed vendor for in-person transfer.
• Recordkeeping: All ammunition sales are recorded in a DOJ database.

Rejection Rates and Practical Impact

The system has generated significant controversy due to its error rate. In the first year of implementation, the DOJ reported that approximately 16% of purchasers were initially rejected, with the vast majority of rejections later reversed as false positives. Lawful gun owners have been denied ammunition due to database errors, name mismatches, and outdated records. Rural residents face particular hardship due to limited vendor availability.

Judge Benitez's District Court Ruling

On January 30, 2024, Judge Roger Benitez of the Southern District of California struck down the ammunition background check system. Applying the framework from NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), he found no historical tradition supporting a government background check requirement for ammunition purchases. The court noted that ammunition is necessary to exercise the right to keep and bear arms and that the system's high false-positive rate imposed an unreasonable burden on the exercise of a constitutional right.

Ninth Circuit Panel Decision (July 24, 2025)

On July 24, 2025, a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that California's ammunition background check restrictions violate the Second Amendment ^[3]. The panel applied the text-and-history test from Bruen and concluded that the ammunition restrictions burden conduct covered by the Second Amendment's plain text and lack any historical analog. The panel entered a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the law.

En Banc Rehearing Granted (December 2, 2025)

California petitioned for rehearing en banc on August 7, 2025. On December 2, 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted the petition, vacating the panel opinion and scheduling en banc oral arguments for the week of March 23, 2026 ^[4]. The ammunition background check system remains in effect during the en banc proceedings. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 25, 2026, in Pasadena.

DOJ and 25-State Coalition Support the Challenge

In January 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief supporting the plaintiffs, arguing that the ammunition restrictions violate the Second Amendment. A coalition of 25 state attorneys general filed a separate amicus brief reaching the same conclusion ^[5]. The DOJ's participation is notable because the federal government rarely weighs in against a state's firearms regulations.

Current Status (April 2026)

En banc oral arguments were held on March 25, 2026, in Pasadena before the full Ninth Circuit. The case is now under submission. Despite the panel decision striking down the law, the en banc grant vacated that opinion, and the ammunition background check system continues to operate. Purchasers must still comply with all existing eligibility check requirements. The en banc court's decision will determine whether California may continue to require background checks for ammunition purchases.

Broader Implications

Rhode is the first federal appellate case to directly address whether Bruen's framework extends to ammunition purchase restrictions. The outcome will set a precedent across the nine Western states within the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction and could influence similar regulatory frameworks in other states.