By Robert Phillips  
Deputy District Attorney (ret.) 

It’s almost impossible to keep up with the deluge of Second Amendment (right to keep and bear arms) cases coming down from both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court since the Supreme Court decided the landmark case of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) 597 U.S. 1, laying out the applicable legal standards. 

One such case is of extraordinary significance: the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Rhode v. Bonta (9th Cir. July 24, 2025) .  In Rhode v. Bonta, the issue was the constitutionality of California’s attempt to regulate the sale of ammunition.  1090. Here, the issue was the constitutionality of California’s attempt to regulate the sale of ammunition.  

In 2016, California voters approved Proposition 63, which created a background check regime for ammunition sales, requiring California residents to purchase ammunition only through licensed firearms dealers in face-to-face transactions. (Cal. Penal Code § 30312(a)-(b)) Before a sale could be completed, it would have to be approved by the California Department of Justice “at the time of purchase or transfer, prior to the purchase or transferee taking possession of the ammunition.” (Id., & P.C. § 30370(a).)  

Via a detailed, complicated set of statutes, ....