The ongoing legal battle over California’s strict ammunition purchase and transportation laws reached a critical milestone this week as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena heard oral arguments in Rhode v. Bonta, Dec. 4. The case challenges provisions of California’s Proposition 63, which imposes some of the nation’s most restrictive regulations on ammunition buyers.
The case, originally filed by the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and lead plaintiff, Olympic champion Kim Rhode, gained momentum earlier this year when U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez ruled the law unconstitutional. However, the Ninth Circuit promptly stayed the decision following the state’s appeal, keeping the regulations in place while the case proceeds.
An Unprecedented Law
Attorneys representing the plaintiffs argued that California’s restrictions on ammunition purchases are unprecedented, noting that such laws have no historical equivalent as required by the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. That ruling established the necessity for modern firearms regulations to align with historical traditions of the Second Amendment.
“Not once in this country’s history has the government required background checks for securing ammunition under a scheme as restrictive as California’s,” CRPA attorneys emphasized, pointing out that the state’s approach lacks a historical analog.
CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel reiterated the importance of today’s hearing:
“The Supreme Court remanded this case back to the Ninth Circuit so that it could follow the directive laid out in Bruen. Our arguments today forcefully demonstrate that ammunition is, of course, covered by the Second Amendment and that the restrictions put in place by the state simply don’t hold up to the standard established in Bruen.”
Broad Support
The case has garnered support from numerous Second Amendment organizations, including Gun Owners of California, Gun Owners of America, the Gun Owners Foundation and the National Rifle Association. Several amicus briefs have been filed, including from 24 states and major ammunition retailers like Able’s Sporting Goods, Ammunition Depot and Sam’s Shooters Emporium.
Eight Years of Legal Struggle
Proposition 63, passed in 2016, introduced requirements such as background checks for ammunition purchases, prohibitions on bringing lawfully purchased ammunition across state lines and additional restrictions deemed burdensome by critics. Over the past eight years, CRPA and its allies have worked tirelessly to challenge the law, citing its infringement on fundamental Second Amendment rights.
Call to Action
As the case progresses, CRPA is urging supporters to remain vigilant and support the organization in its fight.
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Rhode v. Bonta could have far-reaching implications for California and the nation, setting the stage for another potential Supreme Court showdown over Second Amendment rights.
History repeating?, “Early in the morning of April 21, 1775, colonists in Virginia’s capital city of Williamsburg awoke to find that under cover of night the royal governor, John Murray, 4th Earl Dunmore, ordered royal marines to remove the gunpowder stores from the public powder magazine in the center of the town.”
h ttps://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/gunpowder-incident
As a non CA resident I cannot purchase any ammunition in CA because I don’t have a CA ID. Their DROS (dealer record of sale) registration system only processes CA ID’s.
Tens of thousands of law abiding CA residents have been wrongfully denied ammo purchases just because their current address is not in the DROS system and can take MONTHS for the Gov’t to update / process your change of address form. If you haven’t bought a gun from a FFL since the DROS system was created you will be DENIED since you aren’t in the system. SCOTUS must strike this down. It’s ILLEGAL for any CA resident to buy ammo out of state and bring it back into CA. This also violates federal law as only the feds can regulate interstate commerce. If I didn’t have family there I would never go back.
Problem is the leftist mind is a mental illness that is metastasizing and spread to other states.
Slapshot,
I came to echo the end of your comment as well: California’s ammunition law prohibits ammunition from other states which violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
(Our nation’s Framers specifically penned the Commerce Clause to prevent states from hindering their residents’ commerce with other states.)
The latest game that courts have been playing, however, is that any firearm law is okay as long as it does not COMPLETELY interfere with our right to keep and bear arms. Thus California will claim that their law is totally fine since it does not completely bar residents from purchasing ammunition.
Apparently you can with a standard DROS form–and a ten day wait. Also, you may bring in a sufficient amount of ammunition for your planned activities, e.g. a competition, hunting, etc. Obviously you cannot carry (at least for now), so no ammo for your EDC is necessary.
Slap – 1939 would you travel to Germany/Eurp? “Family” can come see you in free America. They likely will enjoy he freedom. Roads mostly go in TWO directions.
NY is watching as this version of the challenge is much further along than ours.
Harry Pope moved to California then an earthquake hit.
I am wondering why Kim Rhode is the only named plaintiff? Right after the CA DOJ activated the proposition I remember reading that Kim Rhode got an FFL3 (C&R FFL) which allows the acquiring ammo without a CA background check.
She being a pro wing shooter with sponsors that provide truck loads of shot shells would otherwise have to move to a free state.
P.S. Many CA residents who shoot a lot and don’t reload have FFL 3’s for the purpose of buying ammo on the internet. It was a CA resident who clued me in to this hack.
She is not the only plaintiff. There were others. One plaintiff moved, and it took the CaDOJ 110 days to update his registration information so that he could by ammunition without a ten day wait. (You have to have at least one firearm registered at your current address in order to take advantage of the instant background check, the cost of which has risen from $1 to $5)
“I am wondering why Kim Rhode is the only named plaintiff?”
A sympathetic plaintiff. Look at the Olympic athlete getting her practice hindered by the evil state…
I watched portions of the oral argument. Counsel for the State was very well prepared and argued well. Plaintiffs’ counsel was prepared but not quite as effective. One judge wants to punt the case on the basis that it should have been an “as applied” challenge (the law is unconstitutional as to this particular plaintiff) instead of a facial challenge (the statute is unconstitutional on its face). If he goes that way and one other judge agrees with him, then the case will be dismissed for lack of standing. I think this is unlikely, as this case has been all the way to the Supreme Court with a reversal for reconsideration in light of Bruen, back down to the trial court, and now back for a second round in the Ninth Circuit.
On the merits, all three judges were clearly disturbed by the number of residents who have been improperly denied on the background check. The State’s argument that this was not a denial of 2A rights wasn’t terribly persuasive; it argued that ammo is “ancillary” to the right to keep and bear and that it is therefore judged under a more lenient standard that required by Bruen. At least two judges commented that the right to obtain ammunition is implicit in the 2A because the right cannot be exercised without it. (Both, by the way, were women, and both were appointed by Republican Presidents. The one male judge seemed anti-gun or at best wobbly, but he noted that other circuits have consistently held that background checks are permissible under the 2A–the only fly in the ointment being the manner in which the law was implemented (an as applied challenge) rather than the law being unconstitutional on its face.
.
“At least two judges commented that the right to obtain ammunition is implicit in the 2A because the right cannot be exercised without it.”
Kinda like how a press can be free to publish, but ink is taxed to usury levels?
The gun rights organizations earned sure aught to fight against these infringements. a guy going trout fishing in Michigan changed the rules of fishing across America because he had help.