California’s Ammo Background Checks: A Constitutional Showdown

How We Got Here: Prop 63 and the Origins of the Law

In 2016, California voters passed Proposition 63, a sweeping gun control initiative that added yet another layer of regulation to firearms and ammunition ownership. One of the more controversial elements? A first-of-its-kind mandate requiring background checks for every single ammunition purchase.

That law officially took effect on July 1, 2019. From that day forward, Californians could no longer walk into a sporting goods store, buy a box of ammo, and head out to the range. Instead, they had to undergo a California Department of Justice (CA DOJ) background check for every purchase—even if they'd already passed a background check to own a firearm.

Ammo buyers must:

• Purchase through a licensed vendor
  
  

• Undergo a "Standard" or "Basic" background check
  
  

• Pay a fee
  
  

• And be subject to potential denials due to database mismatches or outdated records
  
  

The state argued it was a "common sense" measure to keep ammunition out of the hands of felons and prohibited persons. But Second Amendment advocates immediately saw it for what it was: another backdoor infringement designed to chill lawful gun ownership by making the exercise of your rights more burdensome.

The Legal Battle Begins: Rhode v. Bonta

Just days after the law took effect, gun owners and industry plaintiffs—including Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode—filed suit, arguing the law violated the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause.

In 2020, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez issued a fiery opinion blocking the law, stating it created a bureaucratic nightmare and unconstitutionally infringed on the core right to self-defense. He pointed out the absurdity of law-abiding citizens being denied ammo purchases due to clerical errors or DOJ database flaws.

Quote from Judge Benitez:

“The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires, and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured.”

But the state of California appealed, and the case eventually made its way to the Ninth Circuit.

2025: Ninth Circuit Panel Strikes It Down (Temporarily)

In July 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit agreed with Benitez. In a 2-1 decision, the court ruled that California's ammo background-check system violated the Second Amendment.

They applied the text, history, and tradition test from the Supreme Court's 2022 Bruen decision, which requires that any firearm regulation be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition of gun laws. In other words, if there wasn’t a similar restriction in 1791 or shortly thereafter, it probably doesn’t pass constitutional muster.

The panel concluded:

• The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes access to ammunition.
  
  

• California’s background check scheme placed too many roadblocks in the way of exercising that right.
  
  

• The state failed to provide any relevant historical analogues.
  
  

This was a major win for gun rights—briefly.

En Banc Twist: Ninth Circuit Reverses Itself

Here’s where things get messy. On December 1, 2025, the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted an en banc rehearing of the case. Translation? The earlier 2-1 panel decision was vacated, and the law was immediately reinstated.

The new 11-judge panel will now re-evaluate the entire case. In the meantime, Californians are once again stuck with the same old system: background checks for every ammo purchase, more fees, and more chances for the state to deny or delay your rights.

This isn’t just a legal footnote—this is a huge deal. It shows just how determined the Ninth Circuit is to preserve gun control laws, even when they fail under modern constitutional scrutiny.

Let’s be clear: this law was already found unconstitutional under Bruen. Yet California gets a legal redo because the Ninth Circuit wants to bend over backward to keep restrictive laws on the books.

The Bigger Picture

• California claims the law helps keep ammo out of the hands of dangerous people. But they can’t show that it actually works.
  
  

• Gun rights advocates say it targets law-abiding citizens with excessive hurdles, while doing little to stop crime.
  
  

• 24 Republican-led states have filed amicus briefs in support of striking down the law, citing its lack of historical precedent and clear Second Amendment violations.
  
  

The en banc panel is expected to rule in mid-to-late 2026. No matter what they decide, this case is almost certainly headed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 What Gun Owners Need to Know

• The law is currently back in effect. If you buy ammo in California, you still need to go through the background check process.
  
  

• Expect delays, denials, and fees. Even if you're a lawful gun owner, clerical errors in the system can block your purchase.
  
  

• The fight isn’t over. Gun rights groups will push this case as far as it needs to go—and the Supreme Court could take it up in the next term.
  
  

This case isn’t just about ammo. It’s about how far states can go in chipping away at your rights, piece by piece. And it’s a warning: once the government can regulate your access to ammunition, it controls your ability to exercise the Second Amendment at all.

Final Take

California’s ammo background-check law has become one of the most important Second Amendment battles of the decade. It started as a "common sense" safety measure, but it’s now at the center of a legal firestorm that could define the future of gun rights in America.

For gun owners, this case is about more than just buying ammo. It’s about holding the line on constitutional rights and stopping the slow erosion of our freedoms through bureaucratic overreach.

Stay sharp. Stay legal. And stay tuned—because the next chapter could affect every gun owner in the nation.