DOJ Puts California Gun Owners on Notice

California’s Department of Justice has stepped into the spotlight after the recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals opinion in Rhode v. Bonta. William, host of Copper Jacket TV, explained that the DOJ issued an official advisory on July 28, 2025, declaring that the state’s ammunition background check law will remain in effect for now, despite the court ruling that it is unconstitutional.

The Ninth Circuit’s Surprising Opinion

According to William, a three-judge panel struck down the state’s ammo background check scheme, calling it unconstitutional by a 2-1 vote. The ruling came after years of litigation, but the panel’s decision is not the final word. It was an opinion, not an order, which means nothing has changed for California gun owners yet.

The Advisory Itself

William showed the actual advisory, marked as Advisory No. 166. In it, the California DOJ reminded ammunition sellers and buyers that the law still stands. The advisory explained that procedural steps, such as issuing a formal mandate from the Ninth Circuit, have not been completed. Until that happens, ammunition background checks remain in effect.

A Temporary “Freedom Week” That Wasn’t

The Copper Jacket TV report highlighted confusion after the court opinion came out. Several online sellers began shipping ammunition to California customers, assuming the law was already overturned. William warned that this “Freedom Week 2.0” ended almost as soon as it began because the law was never lifted in the first place.

CRPA’s Perspective: How Prop 63 Spiraled

Kevin Small, host of CRPA TV, brought on CRPA President Chuck Michel to analyze why the Ninth Circuit’s decision matters so much. Michel explained that the state’s Prop 63 started as a way to boost Gavin Newsom’s profile, but it soon turned into an overly complicated “ammo purchasing scheme.” Initially, a simple proof-of-eligibility card was enough to buy ammunition. That system morphed into a database-driven nightmare.

The Data System that Failed Californians

As Michel told CRPA TV viewers, the state’s criminal database is deeply flawed. Around 12% of people who try to buy ammunition are wrongly flagged as ineligible. Many new shooters give up because fixing these errors requires significant effort. Michel argued that this is intentional: the state wants to discourage people from participating in gun ownership and shooting sports.

Bruen Changes the Legal Game

In that same discussion, Michel emphasized the importance of the Bruen Supreme Court decision. He noted that the Ninth Circuit panel in Rhode v. Bonta finally applied the Bruen test correctly. They ruled that ammunition is essential to the right to keep and bear arms and that there was no historical precedent for the type of restrictions California imposed.

The Stay That Keeps the Law Alive

Even though the Ninth Circuit panel called the ammo background check scheme unconstitutional, Michel made it clear to CRPA TV that the law stands because of a stay. This stay was put in place years ago after Judge Roger Benitez ruled against the law. The Ninth Circuit granted the state’s request to keep the law in place during the appeal, and that stay has never been lifted.

What Happens Next

Chuck Michel told Kevin Small that the next likely step will be an en banc review – meaning the full Ninth Circuit, or at least 11 judges, could rehear the case. If that happens, there will be new legal briefs, oral arguments, and more months of waiting. If the plaintiffs lose at that level, they can take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Why This Advisory Matters

William of Copper Jacket TV stressed that this advisory from the California DOJ matters because it keeps Californians in legal jeopardy. People who think the law no longer applies risk breaking it. He cautioned everyone to hold off on buying ammunition through unrestricted channels until there’s a clear mandate from the courts.

A Broader War Over Rights

Chuck Michel noted in the CRPA TV segment that this is just one battle in a much larger legal war. Cases over magazine limits, carry permits, and advertising bans are all moving through the courts. Michel sees the Rhode v. Bonta decision as part of a growing pattern: federal courts are finally applying the Bruen standard and recognizing that the Second Amendment covers more than just firearms.

A Clash Between Law and Politics

The situation unfolding in California is fascinating because it shows how a single legal opinion can cause chaos even without immediate effect. It also reveals how states use procedural delays to keep enforcing laws that courts have already called unconstitutional. For gun owners in California, it is a strange moment of both victory and defeat.

What stands out here is the political nature of this law. Michel’s point that Prop 63 started as a political stunt resonates strongly. A system that denies law-abiding people their ammunition simply because of database errors does not sound like a policy designed to improve public safety. Instead, it feels like a barrier crafted to make participation in lawful gun ownership more difficult.

A Turning Point?

Perhaps the most striking element in all of this is the possibility of a shift in the Ninth Circuit’s approach. For decades, the Ninth Circuit has been known as one of the least friendly courts to Second Amendment claims. Seeing a three-judge panel reject California’s ammunition scheme so decisively may be a sign that the tide is finally turning.

In the end, both William from Copper Jacket TV and Kevin Small with CRPA TV agree: Californians remain in limbo. The fight is not over, and the DOJ has made clear that for now, every ammo purchase in California is still subject to the state’s background check system – at least until the Ninth Circuit issues its mandate or a higher court steps in.