California Ammo Restrictions Face Growing Opposition as DOJ, 25 States Back Legal Challenge

California’s long-standing ammunition control scheme is now facing opposition from more than half the country—along with the federal government itself. The case, Rhode v. Bonta, which challenges California’s restrictive ammunition laws, is currently awaiting a rare en banc rehearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In recent weeks, the challenge has gained substantial momentum, drawing support from a coalition of 26 states, the Arizona Legislature, and the U.S. Department of Justice.

At the center of that support is the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which filed a 36-page amicus brief arguing that California’s ammunition restrictions strike at the heart of the Second Amendment. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon announced the filing this week, stating plainly that ammunition purchases are constitutionally protected conduct. “California’s in-person background-check regime—required before every ammunition purchase—restricts the ability of Californians to keep and bear arms,” Dhillon said.

Dhillon has played a key role in establishing the DOJ’s new Second Amendment Section and has recently taken action against jurisdictions including the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over alleged gun-rights violations.

In its brief, the Justice Department makes several critical arguments:

• Acquiring ammunition falls squarely within the plain text of the Second Amendment

  
  

• California’s background-check requirement imposes a “meaningful constraint” on the right to keep and bear arms

  
  

• The state’s ammunition laws lack historical analogues under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework

  
  

• The restrictions are therefore unconstitutional on their face

“The significance of Justice Department interest in the California case cannot be overstated,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, which has also filed an amicus brief supporting Rhode. “This would never have happened under the previous administration,” Gottlieb added. “Correcting decades of damage to the Second Amendment cannot happen overnight, but this is a major step in the right direction.”

Beyond the federal government, a coalition led by Dave Yost of Ohio and Raúl Labrador has filed its own amicus brief opposing California’s ammunition regime. “California has spun a web of burdensome laws designed to stop residents from buying ammunition,” Yost said. “The right to bear arms includes the right to buy ammunition.” Attorneys general from Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming joined the filing—representing a clear majority of states.

The case was brought in 2018 by Olympic gold medalist Kim Rhode, who challenged California’s ammunition controls enacted under Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1235.

Those laws:

• Ban online ammunition purchases for home delivery

  
  

• Criminalize bringing ammunition into California if purchased legally out of state

  
  

• Require a background check for every ammunition purchase

The background-check system has been plagued by fees, delays, data errors, and denials affecting lawful gun owners. In early 2024, a federal district court issued a full injunction, blocking enforcement of the laws. California appealed, prompting the Ninth Circuit to grant en banc review. The en banc rehearing is scheduled for March, with the panel led by Chief Judge Mary Murguia. The ideological balance of the court remains narrow, with 16 judges appointed by Democratic presidents and 13 by Republicans.

The outcome could have sweeping implications—not just for California, but for any state attempting to choke off gun ownership indirectly by regulating ammunition.

At 2 If By Sea Tactical, we’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: A right that cannot be exercised is no right at all. If the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, it must also protect the right to acquire the ammunition that makes those arms functional. With the DOJ and a majority of states now on record, California’s ammo laws may finally be on borrowed time.

Here at 2 If By Sea Tactical we strive to bring you the best experience in the firearms world.  As we continue to grow the media arm of 2 If By Sea, make sure you keep tuning in to our Youtube Channel @2ifbyseatactical and right here at “The Patriot’s Almanac” to stay informed on the latest happenings in the firearm world! But we are not lawyers, so this isn't legal guidance.

Stay sharp, stay informed, and stay ready.