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.