California’s controversial ammunition background check law is once again in the spotlight. The case, Rhode v. Bonta, is now headed to the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel, a move that could either spell the end of the law – or cement it as precedent for years to come. Kevin Small of CRPA TV sat down with attorney Matt Cubeiro to unpack where things stand, what’s at stake, and why this fight has become one of the most closely watched Second Amendment battles in the country.
The Origins of Rhode v. Bonta
Kevin Small opened the discussion by revisiting how this case began. Back in 2016, California lawmakers passed sweeping ammunition regulations as part of what activists called “Gunmageddon.” Proposition 63, pushed by then-Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom, required background checks for every single ammunition purchase.
According to Matt Cubeiro, partner at Michel & Associates, the law created the first restrictions of its kind anywhere in the country. “Not the least of which,” Cubeiro said, “was requiring a background check every time somebody purchases ammunition.” Those requirements officially took effect in 2019, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) immediately filed suit.
How the Courts Have Ruled So Far
Cubeiro explained that the case initially saw success in federal district court, where Judge Roger Benitez ruled the law unconstitutional. That victory was challenged and remanded after the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision in 2022. On rehearing, Judge Benitez again struck down the law, this time applying Bruen’s “text, history, and tradition” test.
The Ninth Circuit panel then weighed in, and in a 2–1 opinion, also declared California’s ammunition restrictions unconstitutional. As Small summarized, “That makes three favorable rulings for gun owners: twice from Judge Benitez, and once from a Ninth Circuit panel.”
Facing the Ninth Circuit En Banc
But as Small noted, the fight is far from over. California appealed to the Ninth Circuit en banc – a larger panel of judges that often revisits controversial rulings. “We kind of face a whole different beast right now,” Small admitted, pointing to the political makeup of the court.
Cubeiro broke it down: historically, the Ninth Circuit leaned two-thirds toward Democratic appointees. President Trump’s judicial appointments temporarily balanced that closer to 50–50, but President Biden has since swung it back to its prior tilt. “I can’t really say that the Ninth Circuit has been too favorable to us on en banc panels,” Cubeiro acknowledged.
Why This Challenge Is All or Nothing
Small asked Cubeiro whether a partial win was possible, as has happened in other cases such as challenges to “sensitive places” laws. Cubeiro explained that this case is different. “This is a straight-up facial challenge,” he said. “The argument is that on its face, in any circumstance, the law is unconstitutional.”
Because the provisions are so intertwined – licensing, background checks, transfer rules – removing one part would unravel the rest. “I would be of the opinion in this case it would be more of an all-or-nothing ruling,” Cubeiro concluded.
What a Victory Would Mean for California Gun Owners
If the law is struck down, Cubeiro said the landscape could look a lot like it did before 2016. Businesses that once struggled with licensing fees, compliance costs, and staffing could return those resources to lowering prices and increasing availability. “It would open up a lot of those resources to be spent elsewhere,” Cubeiro explained, “and therefore potentially reduce the overall cost of ammunition.”
Another major benefit? Out-of-state retailers who have refused to ship to California would likely return to the market. “There are plenty of businesses outside of California that just straight up refuse to do business with California customers because of this restriction,” Cubeiro said. Removing the law could put California back in line with the rest of the country.
Assembly Bill 28 and the 11% Ammo Tax
But even if the background check requirement is struck down, Californians still face another burden: Assembly Bill 28, which created an 11% excise tax on firearms, parts, and ammunition. Small pointed out that AB 28 was designed to capitalize on the background check law, since it forced all sales through California FFLs.
Cubeiro explained how the state interprets the tax. “The retail sale, in their view, occurs at the dealer – even though the sale originated outside of California – because when you go to run the background check, that’s the actual transaction,” he said. If Rhode is victorious, however, ammunition could once again be bought directly from out-of-state sellers, potentially sidestepping California’s excise tax.
Could California Expand the Tax Anyway?
Small pressed Cubeiro on whether the state could simply rewrite AB 28 to apply the 11% tax to out-of-state purchases. Cubeiro admitted it’s possible. “States are looking at ways to collect their portion of those sales,” he said. Legally, whether California can do that is another question, but he cautioned that lawmakers are eager to “make sure they get their coin.”
That possibility underscores the broader pattern in California: even when courts strike down one restriction, legislators rush to pass another. For gun owners, that means vigilance is essential.
Why Out-of-State Ammo Access is Important
Beyond the financial implications, the ability to buy ammunition across state lines touches on the core of the Second Amendment. Small noted that California’s restrictions not only drove up costs but also limited practical access. Many Californians found themselves unable to complete purchases because of mismatched databases, errors, or excessive delays.
Cubeiro agreed, stressing that eliminating these obstacles would restore rights for ordinary citizens. “It would hugely benefit California gun owners and law-abiding citizens generally to not only exercise their rights, but to do so at a more competitive cost market like we see in the rest of the United States,” he said.
The Stakes for the Ninth Circuit
Both Small and Cubeiro recognized that this case has implications far beyond ammunition. If the Ninth Circuit upholds the law, it could provide a roadmap for other states looking to regulate ammunition sales. If it strikes it down, the decision could be cited nationally as precedent for dismantling similar schemes.
“It’s not just about California,” Small emphasized. “This could reshape how states think about controlling not just firearms, but the very ability to use them.”
Failing the Test of History
From my perspective, what makes Rhode v. Bonta fascinating is how it highlights the tension between two forces: courts enforcing constitutional standards, and legislatures constantly pushing the envelope of restriction. California framed its ammo background check law as “common sense,” yet three courts have already said it fails the test of history and tradition.
The real question now is whether the Ninth Circuit en banc will apply the law consistently – or bend to political winds. If the court stands with gun owners, California’s entire regulatory approach could unravel. If not, the state will likely double down with even stricter laws, daring gun owners to keep fighting.
Why Gun Owners Should Pay Attention
As Cubeiro pointed out, Californians aren’t just battling one law – they’re facing an entire ecosystem of restrictions, from licensing to excise taxes. Each case matters because it chips away at a structure designed to make exercising a constitutional right as burdensome as possible.
For those outside California, watching this case is still vital. What happens here often becomes a model for gun control in other states. As Small said, “There are multiple ways for everybody to win in this case,” but the Ninth Circuit will ultimately decide which path prevails.
A Defining Moment
The road to this point has been long – three victories, countless appeals, and a political landscape that keeps shifting. Yet as Rhode v. Bonta heads to the Ninth Circuit en banc, the stakes have never been higher.
If the court rules for gun owners, Californians could see a reset to pre-2016, with cheaper, more available ammunition and fewer regulatory hurdles. If the court sides with the state, it may embolden lawmakers to push even further.
As Kevin Small summed up, this is one case every gun owner should follow closely. And as Matt Cubeiro reminded, it may ultimately come down to whether the courts treat the Second Amendment as a real right – or a privilege the state can redefine at will.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.
