Huge 2A Win Brewing in California — And It Could Affect Every Gun Owner in America

I don't usually look to California for good Second Amendment news. But something just happened out in San Francisco that every gun owner in America — including every one of our customers here in Illinois — needs to pay attention to.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has just announced the 11-judge en banc panel that will hear Rhode v. Bonta, the case challenging California's ammunition background check law. And in what constitutional attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner channel — a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar — is calling "almost unheard of" for the Ninth Circuit, 8 of those 11 judges were appointed by Republican presidents. Only 3 were appointed by Democrats.

That is a genuinely remarkable development in a court that has historically been one of the worst in the country for Second Amendment rights.

What Rhode v. Bonta Is About

California passed a law requiring anyone who wants to purchase ammunition to first pass a background check. This is not a federal requirement. This is not the law anywhere else in the country. It is a one-of-a-kind, outlier state law specifically designed to make it harder — and more expensive — for law-abiding citizens to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

We've already won this case twice. A federal district court struck the law down as unconstitutional. Then a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel also struck it down, two to one, ruling the ammunition background check violated the Second Amendment. California — as it always does — refused to accept those losses and demanded the full Ninth Circuit rehear the case en banc, hoping a larger panel would reverse those wins.

That's where we are now. The en banc argument is scheduled for March 25, 2026.

Why This Panel Matters

Normally, when the Second Amendment goes in front of an en banc Ninth Circuit panel, gun owners don't have much to hope for. The circuit has historically been hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. But this panel is different.

One important note: Judge Bybee, one of the Republican-appointed judges, was actually the dissenter in the original three-judge panel decision — meaning he voted that the ammunition background check was constitutional. So realistically, the lineup may be closer to 7 favorable judges out of 11 rather than 8. Still, as Smith put it, "we literally have a chance to win" — which is more than can usually be said about Second Amendment cases in this court.

There's also a broader power this panel holds that deserves attention. An en banc panel of a federal circuit has the authority to overturn prior decisions from that same circuit, including past en banc rulings. In theory, if this panel chose to do so, it could undo years of bad Ninth Circuit Second Amendment precedent. That almost certainly won't happen in this specific case, but it signals how significant the composition of this panel really is.

The DOJ Is on Our Side — Again

Just as we saw in the Illinois PICA fight, where the Trump DOJ filed a 34-page amicus brief calling Illinois' gun ban "flatly unconstitutional," the same pattern is playing out in California. Harmeet Dhillon and the Second Amendment unit of the Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, have filed a brief in Rhode v. Bonta arguing that the lower courts were right — California's ammunition background check law is unconstitutional and should be struck down.

Why Ammunition Background Checks Are Unconstitutional

The Second Amendment's plain text protects the right to keep and bear arms. But as the Seventh Circuit recognized in Ezell v. City of Chicago, that right also includes the right to train — because you cannot meaningfully exercise your right to armed self-defense if you are not proficient with your firearm. And to train, you need ammunition. To carry for self-defense, you need ammunition. To protect your home, you need ammunition.

California's background check requirement puts a direct government-imposed barrier — including a financial cost — between a law-abiding citizen and the ammunition they need to exercise a constitutional right. It is also exactly the kind of outlier state law that the Supreme Court has consistently knocked down. Heller struck down D.C.'s handgun ban. Bruen struck down New York's carry permit system. McDonald struck down Chicago's handgun ban. Caetano struck down Massachusetts' stun gun ban. Every one of those was a state or local law. California's ammunition background check fits the same pattern.

What This Means for Illinois

Every victory for the Second Amendment anywhere in the country strengthens the legal foundation that cases here in the Seventh Circuit are built on. Every time a court correctly applies Bruen and strikes down a law that burdens the right to keep and bear arms, it makes it harder for states like Illinois to defend PICA and the other restrictions that have been placed on our customers and our community.

We're still waiting on the Seventh Circuit's decision in Barnett v. Raoul. The Supreme Court is still sitting on Viramontes v. Cook County. And now the Ninth Circuit is about to hear oral argument in Rhode v. Bonta on March 25. The Second Amendment battlefield is active on multiple fronts right now — and for the first time in a long time, we're winning more than we're losing.

Stay locked in. We'll keep you updated on every development as it happens.

— Robert Bevis, Law Weapons & Supply