The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 24, 2025, that California’s law requiring background checks for ammunition purchases is unconstitutional, upholding a lower court’s permanent injunction against its enforcement. This decision, rooted in the 2022 Supreme Court case *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen*, found that the background check requirement infringes on Second Amendment rights by imposing burdens inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The ruling took effect immediately, allowing ammunition to be purchased without background checks and shipped to federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs) in California.
California has several legal options to challenge or mitigate the Ninth Circuit’s ruling:
Request for En Banc Review
– California can petition the Ninth Circuit for an en banc rehearing, where a larger panel of 11 judges (or, in rare cases, the full court) reconsiders the decision. This is a common step when a party believes a three-judge panel’s ruling misinterprets the law or precedent, particularly in high-profile cases like *Rhode v. Bonta*.
– The state’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta, has indicated plans to explore legal options, and an en banc appeal is likely given the state’s history of defending its gun control laws. For example, posts on X from February 2024 noted California’s intent to appeal similar rulings, and the state has previously sought en banc review in related cases.
Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court
– If the Ninth Circuit denies en banc review or upholds the panel’s decision, California can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari. The Supreme Court accepts only a small fraction of cases, but given the constitutional implications and the high-profile nature of Second Amendment litigation post-*Bruen*, there’s a reasonable chance the Court could take the case to clarify the application of *Bruen*’s historical tradition test.
– Legal experts have suggested this case is likely to reach the Supreme Court, as noted in a CBS San Francisco report from February 2024.
Request a Stay of the Injunction– California can request a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling to reinstate the background check requirement while further appeals are pursued. A stay could be sought from the Ninth Circuit itself or, if denied, from the U.S. Supreme Court.
– The state previously secured stays in this case. For instance, in February 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted a stay on a lower court’s injunction, allowing background checks to resume pending appeal.
Legislative or Regulatory Adjustments
– While not a direct legal recourse, California could attempt to revise its ammunition laws to align with the *Bruen* standard, potentially by crafting a narrower regulation that might withstand constitutional scrutiny. However, this would not address the immediate impact of the ruling.
Likelihood of Obtaining a Stay
The likelihood of California obtaining a stay depends on several factors, including the legal standard for granting a stay and the judicial context:
Legal Standard for a Stay To grant a stay, a court typically considers four factors:
(1) the likelihood of the applicant’s success on the merits
(2) the likelihood of irreparable harm absent a stay
(3) the balance of equities
(4) the public interest. California’s arguments would likely focus on public safety, citing the risk of prohibited individuals (e.g., felons or those with mental health issues) purchasing ammunition. A 2024 California DOJ report noted that 191 prohibited individuals were denied ammunition purchases due to background checks, bolstering this argument.
Prior Success in Obtaining Stays
California has a track record of securing stays in this case. In February 2024, a 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel granted a stay on Judge Roger Benitez’s injunction, citing public safety concerns and the state’s argument that *Bruen* was misapplied. This precedent suggests a reasonable chance of success, particularly if the state argues that the panel’s ruling misinterprets *Bruen* or overlooks historical analogues for ammunition regulation.
Judicial Composition
The Ninth Circuit has a majority of judges appointed by Democratic presidents, which may favor California’s position, as seen in prior rulings upholding gun control measures. However, the panel’s 2-1 decision (with Judges Ikuta and Bade, both Republican appointees, in the majority) and the dissent by Judge Bybee indicate division. An en banc panel, if granted, could lean toward California’s public safety arguments, increasing the likelihood of a stay.
Counterarguments Opponents, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association, argue that the background check system imposes undue burdens on law-abiding gun owners, with an 11% rejection rate for eligible purchasers and no historical precedent for such checks. The *Bruen* decision’s emphasis on historical tradition strengthens their case, potentially making it harder for California to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits
Given these factors, California has a moderate to high likelihood of obtaining a stay, particularly from the Ninth Circuit, due to its prior success and the court’s receptiveness to public safety arguments. However, the *Bruen* standard and the panel’s clear rejection of California’s historical analogues could complicate the state’s case, especially if the stay request reaches the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority skeptical of expansive gun regulations.