Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as California Seeks En Banc Rehearing

5.56 ammo ammunition cartridges bullets

In a major Second Amendment ruling, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s 2016 laws requiring background checks for ammunition purchases and prohibiting direct mail-order sales, declaring those laws unconstitutional. The decision, issued in Rhode v. Bonta, marks a significant victory for Ammunition Depot, the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), and fellow plaintiffs challenging those laws. However, California officials have now moved to challenge that ruling by seeking a rehearing en banc (full court review) at the Ninth Circuit, which means the panel’s decision will not take effect immediately. As a result, California’s current ammunition regulations, including in-store background checks and restrictions on direct shipments of ammo, remain in force pending further court proceedings.

Under the still-operative law (Proposition 63, passed in 2016), California residents must buy ammunition through in-state licensed dealers and undergo a background check for each purchase, which effectively bans direct online ammo sales to homes. Ammunition Depot is urging its California customers to remain patient and continue following all current state laws regarding ammunition transactions while the legal process unfolds. Under the California DOJ’s interpretation, the state’s ammunition restrictions remain in effect while the case proceeds. The company will immediately begin direct shipments to California customers if and when the court’s mandate is allowed to take effect, but that cannot happen unless Ammunition Depot prevails in the next phase of the case.

“We know this is frustrating for California gun owners who were hopeful the recent court decision would restore their ammo buying freedom right away,” said Seth Weinstein, Founder & Managing Partner of Ammunition Depot. “Unfortunately, the ruling is on hold because the State of California is fighting tooth and nail to keep these restrictions in place. We respect the legal process, but believe Californians’ rights should not be delayed any longer. Our customers in California have waited years for relief, and we’re not about to give up now. We’ll continue this fight to its finish.”

The California Attorney General has formally requested that a larger panel of Ninth Circuit judges reexamine the case. This next phase of the case could take several months, depending on whether en banc review is granted and how quickly the court acts. First, the active judges of the Ninth Circuit will decide whether to grant en banc review. If granted, an 11-judge panel will be convened to rehear the case, likely later this year or in early 2026. Because California has now filed for en banc review, the panel’s ruling will not take effect unless that petition is denied or resolved. The mandate remains pending, and the 2016 California ammunition laws continue to be enforced during this stage of the appeal.

“We anticipated that California would not back down easily, and we are fully prepared to see this through,” Weinstein continued. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision was a huge win for the Constitution and millions of law-abiding Californians, and we remain confident that win will ultimately prevail, whether at an en banc hearing or at the Supreme Court. California’s leaders have made it clear they won’t back down, and neither will we. We owe it to our customers and all Californians to keep fighting until their rights are restored.”

In the meantime, Ammunition Depot will continue to keep California customers informed. The company previously celebrated the Ninth Circuit panel’s ruling as a historic affirmation of Second Amendment rights, and it remains a lead plaintiff in defending that ruling through the next stages of litigation.

Seth Weinstein emphasized that California customers must still abide by current law until the case is fully resolved. “California law remains unchanged for now…. We urge all California customers to continue purchasing ammunition through licensed in-state channels. We know it’s frustrating, but we don’t want anyone caught in a legal gray area. If you attempt to order from us today, we regret that we are still unable to ship to you under the current law. But hang tight; we are hopeful that day is coming. We have fought for years to make online ammo sales to California legal again, and we are not stopping now.”

Ammunition Depot will provide additional updates as soon as the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court provides clarity on the next steps. The company remains optimistic that the result will be a permanent victory for California gun owners.

“We’ve come this far, and the momentum is on our side,” said Weinstein. “We’re confident that, in time, the Constitution will prevail. We appreciate the support and patience of our customers and promise to notify them the moment we are legally allowed to resume shipments to California. That day will be a cause for celebration, not just for our company, but for everyone who values the Second Amendment.”

Leave a Reply to Chris T in KY Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

17 thoughts on “Ninth Circuit Victory on Hold as California Seeks En Banc Rehearing”

  1. The california governor Newscum, will ignore the Supreme Court. Just like Alabama governor George Wallace did.

    And both are Democrats.

    The military had to “convince” Gov Wallace. But the military is not going to save california from it self. Not even President Trump will order that.

    Historically the libertarians were against federal intervention. According to them the military only makes things worse.

    1. Unfortunately you are 100% correct. If you want to enjoy the freedoms that our great nation is based upon, you are going to have to move out of California. That is, if you are still allowed to.

  2. .40 cal Booger

    Caught On Camera: Gun vs. Fists – If You Ever Face a Gun, Don’t Do This.

    (Colion) “A man’s holding a gun, backing away, telling you to stop. What’s your next move?
    If your answer is “taunt him and keep coming,” congratulations—you’ve just made the dumbest decision of your life.

    This self-defense shooting wasn’t about ego, it was about survival—and the legal reality most people don’t understand. Just because you’re ‘unarmed’ doesn’t mean you’re not a lethal threat. In this breakdown, I’ll show you why the law cleared him, how perception can still ruin you, and the one principle every armed citizen needs to know to survive both the fight and the system.

    Because in 2025, the gunfight is only half the battle—the rest happens in a courtroom.

    WATCH and decide: justified self-defense, or could it have gone another way?
    …”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYC3CmdC-N8

    1. I’m glad the “days” have the 1st amendment right to say these things disgusting things in the 21st century. Of course 100 years ago a person could be shot or hit with a cane for saying such things.

      And the police considered it just “mutual combat” and normally didn’t arrest anyone.

      But back in 2020 the “days” told the christians to stay away from church. Because the “days” agreed with the government.

      But the “days” were allowed to have their B/L/M protests and parades.

      The “days” and not believers have never supported the 1st amendment.

      They believe s0c.i @-l is.tis.m “works.”

      It’s good this was recorded so the world can see the REAL face of the “days” movement.

      1. With all the book banning going on in Florida, it appears that the MAGA Republicans down there are not too supporti9ve of the First Amendment either.

  3. .40 cal Booger

    species ‘left wingius felonious’: Boston’s Sanctuary Sheriff Indicted on Federal Extortion Charges.



    One of the Left’s sanctuary darlings just got slapped with federal charges. Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins, best known for kicking ICE out of his jails and turning Boston into a safe haven for illegal immigrants, was arrested on Friday by the FBI in Florida on federal extortion charges. According to reports, Tompkins allegedly demanded $50,000 from the owner of a national cannabis company looking to operate in Boston.

    Tompkins was arrested after a federal grand jury indicted him for … extorting a cannabis company executive. He was arrested on two counts of extortion …
    …”
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/saraharnold/2025/08/08/fbi-arrests-bostons-sanctuary-sheriff-on-federal-extortion-charges-n2661578

  4. .40 cal Booger

    Oh, That’s Why Democrats Don’t Want a New Census.



    On Thursday President Donald Trump directed the U.S. Commerce Department to conduct a new population count without illegal aliens.

    ‘I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!’ Trump posted on Truth Social Thursday.

    The directive sent Democrats into a meltdown and thanks to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, we know why.

    Without illegal aliens counted in the U.S. Census, which determines congressional representation in Washington D.C., Democrats would be in the minority.

    ‘They stole 20 or 30 House seats by counting illegal aliens in the census, and now you have Democrats talking about, ‘Oh, Republicans can’t change their congressional maps!’ You have literally brought invaders into this country by the tens of millions to RIG the results of the census, and the apportionment of congressional seats!” Miller says. ‘And then on top of that, of course, you have a situation where even though Republicans won a landslide in the House popular vote, Democrats have so thoroughly rigged and gerrymandered and manipulated their districts beyond all recognition that Republicans only gained a 4-seat majority, …
    …”

    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2025/08/08/oh-thats-why-democrats-dont-want-a-new-census-n2661554

  5. .40 cal Booger

    What is it with left wingers and signs? They are not ‘magical force fields’ that keep people out if people really want to come in and choose to do so. ‘No Gun Zone’ signs that attract mentally ill killers, basically a law guaranteeing defenseless prey to mentally ill killers – and now ‘ICE Is Not Welcome Here’ signs thinking they will keep ICE away.

    Surge of Richmond, VA Area Businesses Putting Up ‘ICE Is Not Welcome Here’ Signs.

    https://hotair.com/headlines/2025/08/08/surge-of-richmond-va-area-businesses-putting-up-ice-is-not-welcome-here-signs-n3805606

  6. I had previously read that an Appeal by the State of California, to the 9th Circuit’s 3 Judge panel’s (Unanimous Decision) eliminating the “Ammo Ban” must be filed with 3 days of their ruling. The 3 Judge Panel, agreeing that the Ban was Unconstitutional, occurred on or about July 24, 2025. Yet, the appeal filed by the State of California requesting an En Banc review did not occur until August 7th. [The dates stated are from memory & may be “+/-“, yet no Appeal was filed within the 3 day (72 Hour) appeal period. Hence, how can the State of California challenge the decision if they did not file an appeal for En Banc review approximately 2 weeks later? Or, alternatively, what is the time period within which an En Banc appeal request must be filed to be compliant with the rules & regulations for a Federal Circuit Court?

    1. Maybe because your timeline is off? It is a lot more than 3 days, 30 in fact if I recall correctly, and that time may be extended by application to the court. So just assume that the r4equest was timely, an assumption reinforced by the fact that the Plaintiffs are not yelling and screaming about untimeliness.

  7. I’ve never thought to ask: Is California the only state that requires face to face sales with a background check to buy ammunition? I really do miss the days when there would be a heavy box sitting at my front door. Not only is the convenience lost, but brick and mortar stores prices are higher and the selection significantly restricted. Last time I was perusing rifle ammo at the local Sportsman’s Warehouse, there were a number of choices for various leaded ammunition, but hardly any selection at all for solid copper rounds (unless you roll your own, which I do).

    Given the infamy of the Ninth Circuit en banc panels and their regularity in overturning pro-rights decisions and their usual practice of interminable delays and stays to avoid making a decision for as l long as possible, if en banc is granted oral argument is not likely to occur for six or eight months, with a decision a year or two after that. Sad, sad, sad.

Scroll to Top