By Tanya Metaksa
Rhode v. Bonta, Case No. 24-542, initially filed as Rhode v. Becerra in 2018, is a pivotal federal court case challenging California’s ammunition purchase restrictions under Proposition 63, also known as the “Safety for All Act” of 2016.
The plaintiffs, including Olympic shooter Kim Rhode, firearms businesses, and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), argued that the state’s mandatory background checks and anti-importation laws violated the Second Amendment, the dormant Commerce Clause, and federal preemption principles. Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under Judge Roger T. Benitez, the case has seen multiple rulings and appeals, culminating in a significant Ninth Circuit decision in 2025.
Case Background and Initial Filing
Proposition 63, passed by the voters in 2017, required background checks for all ammunition purchases and restricted the import of out-of-state ammunition to licensed California vendors, with full implementation by July 2019. On April 26, 2018, the plaintiffs filed suit (Case No. 3:18-cv-00802-BEN-JLB), alleging that these laws burdened the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners, discriminated against interstate commerce, and conflicted with federal law. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin enforcement, citing delays, costs, and minimal public safety benefits (e.g., only 0.03% of 2023 background checks identified prohibited persons).
District Court Rulings
On April 23, 2020, Judge Benitez granted a preliminary injunction, finding the laws likely unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and dormant Commerce Clause. He highlighted the undue burdens on law-abiding citizens, such as delays and face-to-face transaction requirements. The state appealed to the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 20-55437), which initially held the case in abeyance pending Duncan v. Becerra, a related case on high-capacity magazines.
Impact of NYSRPA v. Bruen
The U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen reshaped the case by establishing a new Second Amendment test, requiring firearm regulations to align with historical traditions rather than means-end scrutiny. The Ninth Circuit remanded Rhode to the district court for reconsideration in light of Bruen. Judge Benitez consolidated a renewed injunction motion with a trial on the merits, reaffirming the plaintiffs’ standing based on concrete injuries, such as purchase delays and associated costs.
Permanent Injunction and Appeals
On Jan. 30, 2024, Judge Benitez issued a permanent injunction, ruling that California’s ammunition laws lacked historical precedent under Bruen and imposed unjustifiable burdens. The state appealed (Case No. 24-542) and secured a stay on Feb. 6, 2024, which allowed for continued enforcement pending appeal. Oral arguments on Dec. 4, 2024, centered on Bruen’s historical test, with the plaintiffs arguing that the laws lacked historical analogues and the state defending its public safety rationale.
Ninth Circuit Ruling
On Thursday, the Ninth Circuit, in a 2-1 decision (Judges Ikuta and Bade, with Bybee dissenting), affirmed the permanent injunction, striking down the ammunition laws as unconstitutional. The majority found no historical basis for the restrictions, while Judge Bybee argued the laws’ minimal burdens were lawful. CRPA and plaintiffs celebrated the ruling as a Second Amendment victory.
Current Status
As of July 24, California’s ammunition restrictions remain unenforceable, but the state may seek en banc review or Supreme Court certiorari. Rhode v. Bonta remains a landmark case, with significant implications for firearm regulations nationwide, closely watched by both gun rights and gun control advocates.
Sources: U.S. District Court and Ninth Circuit filings, CRPA updates, California Attorney General statements, and verified X posts. Check Ninth Circuit docket (Case No. 24-542) for updates.
