Rhode v Bonta

[foothillman]

Does this affect the 500 round monthly limit on private ammunition sales? I think that is still in force.

Correct........ 1/30/2024

found in California Penal Code§§ 30352 and 30370(a) through (e), and
the ammunition anti-importation provisions found in §§ 30312(a) and (b) and 30314(a), as well as the
criminal enforcement of California Penal Code §§ 30312(d), 30314(c), and 30365(a)

Codes: Code Search

30342
(a) Commencing January 1, 2018, a valid ammunition vendor license shall be required for any person, firm, corporation, or other business enterprise to sell more than 500 rounds of ammunition in any 30-day period.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to, or affect the sale of, ammunition to a person who holds a valid ammunition vendor license by a person in order to comply with Section 6389 of the Family Code.
(c) Subdivision (a) does not apply to, or affect the sale of, ammunition to a person who holds a valid ammunition vendor license by a person in order to comply with Section 527.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d) Subdivision (a) does not apply to, or affect the sale of, ammunition to a person who holds a valid ammunition vendor license by a person in order to comply with Section 18120.
(e) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor.
(f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2026.
(Repealed (in Sec. 31) and added by Stats. 2024, Ch. 544, Sec. 32. (SB 899) Effective January 1, 2025. Operative January 1, 2026, by its own provisions.)

 

[Librarian]

On X, from CD Michel 10 hours ago (roughly noon PDT)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1948448306948178132

 

[Wolkenflieger]

Targetsportsusa has always been a good source for me. If you have their ammoplus membership you get a discounted price and free shipping. They also send some goodies every year.

I just made my first FFL03 order through them, and I've signed up with Super Vel as well. Target Sports has a good selection, usually. I'll file with Velocity too I think in case they ever consistently carry my favored brand of Ammo.

 

[Rickvs]

Brownells is shipping ammo to CA. Natchez Shooting Supply is not (yet?)

 

[Robdog1]

Brownells is shipping ammo to CA. Natchez Shooting Supply is not (yet?)

Natchez is one of those companies that really doesn’t care about CA. Same with Bereli, Lucky Gunner, PSA, and dozens of others. There are a lot more (and better) companies out there that deserve our $.

 

[MattB]

Velocity says NOW! Velocity Website

Velocity just cancelled my order. I placed it the day the ban went down and now they cancel it.

 

[Ken9mm]

Velocity just cancelled my order. I placed it the day the ban went down and now they cancel it.

Give or take how many hots before it was banned , or after you saw the notice?

 

[MattB]

Give or take how many hots before it was banned , or after you saw the notice?

Not sure what you mean.

I do have an update though. I reached out to Velocity and was informed that the cancellation was a mistake. They thought I wanted to cancel for some reason.

 

[weimer20]

What a shocker! Rhode v Bonta is headed for en banc review. 9th is looking to step on the scale once more.

 

[Jimi Jah]

Judicial musical chairs. One more round.

 

[jag9953]

I’m so sick of the ambiguity. I’m at the point where I’d rather have a no that to drag it on with false hope

 

[skb720]

En Banc is supposed to be used Only for extreme emergency urgent cases. When the state cannot even answer why 10 rounds is better/worse than 9 or 11, it becomes a comedy and parody.

 

[Dvrjon]

En Banc is supposed to be used Only for extreme emergency urgent cases. When the state cannot even answer why 10 rounds is better/worse than 9 or 11, it becomes a comedy and parody.

Not according to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure #35:

An en banc hearing or rehearing is not favored and ordinarily will not be ordered unless:
(1) en banc consideration is necessary to secure or maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or
(2) the proceeding involves a question of exceptional importance.

Nothing there about "extreme or urgent cases".

To qualify (same source):,

(1) The petition must begin with a statement that either:
(A) the panel decision conflicts with a decision of the United States Supreme Court or of the court to which the petition is addressed (with citation to the conflicting case or cases) and consideration by the full court is therefore necessary to secure and maintain uniformity of the court’s decisions; or
(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

 

[Dvrjon]

Background Documents for Rhode:

-Three-Judge Panel Opinion.

We hold that California’s ammunition background check regime is unconstitutional, and we affirm the district court’s grant of a permanent injunction.

-State Petition for En Banc Hearing

The panel’s conclusion that the ammunition background check requirement is unconstitutional on its face conflicts with precedent and distorts Bruen’s analysis. This Court has rejected the notion that any regulation that affects the acquisition of firearms or ammunition in any way necessarily implicates the Second Amendment. [...]But this case also involves questions of exceptional importance.

-Response in Opposition to En Banc Rehearing

The panel faithfully applied this Court’s precedents at each stage of the Second Amendment inquiry, and, unsurprisingly, given the one-off nature of this regime, created no conflict with the cases of any sister court. That is reason enough to deny rehearing, but the problems with California’s novel regime extend beyond the Second Amendment, and the judgment is supported by multiple alternative grounds that the majority declined to address but the district court correctly concluded independently doom California’s law.

-Order setting date for En Banc

The week of March 23, 2026, in Pasadena, California. The date and time will be determined by separate order.

 

[skb720]

(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

If answering whether 10 rounds is better than 11 rounds, or 9 rounds is odd number, then we have some bizarre standards for defining "exceptional importance"; watch the pre-Bruen oral arguments. The state admitted 10 was just an abstract number. En Banc is granted too frequently and in an abstract (or political) manner, then people and society lose confidence in its judiciary system.

 

[Dvrjon]

(B) the proceeding involves one or more questions of exceptional importance, each of which must be concisely stated; for example, a petition may assert that a proceeding presents a question of exceptional importance if it involves an issue on which the panel decision conflicts with the authoritative decisions of other United States Courts of Appeals that have addressed the issue.

If answering whether 10 rounds is better than 11 rounds, or 9 rounds is odd number, then we have some bizarre standards for defining "exceptional importance"; watch the pre-Bruen oral arguments. The state admitted 10 was just an abstract number. En Banc is granted too frequently and in an abstract (or political) manner, then people and society lose confidence in its judiciary system.

Pay attention. The FRAP is two standards cojoined by "or". One need not meet both standards to qualify.

(And, Rhode is about the ammunition background checks, Not magazine capacities...that's Duncan and is in another thread.)

But, to more fully flesh out the aspect of exceptional importance, the State also opined that:

But this case also involves questions of exceptional importance. Indeed, just days after the panel issued its decision in this case, the Court ordered rehearing en banc and vacated the panel’s decision in Yukutake v. Lopez, No. 21-16756, an appeal presenting similar questions related to Bruen’s threshold inquiry. Yukutake confirms that the issues presented in this petition warrant further review.

 

[Chewy19]

En Banc is supposed to be used Only for extreme emergency urgent cases. When the state cannot even answer why 10 rounds is better/worse than 9 or 11, it becomes a comedy and parody.

". . . Panel rehearing is the ordinary means of reconsidering a panel decision; rehearing en banc is not favored. " FRAP 40 (a). Also FRAP 40(cBut en banc is not limited to urgency cases, but if the panel opinon is in conflict with decisions of the Ninth, of SCOTUS, or "authoritative" decisons of other appellate circuits. See FRAP 40(c) and (b)(2).

skb720. I suspect you know the rules far better than myself and feel free to correct me.

 

[Dvrjon]

Federal DOJ has filed an Amicus brief in support of Rhode.

Twenty-six states have filed a joint Amicus brief supporting Rhode.

En Banc with the 9 CA is still set for the week of 23 March 2026 in Pasadena. (Date and time not yet determined).

 

[GunZKK]

I never understood how a person in arizona is more free then I am. Are we not all Americans? How does the Constitution not apply to all of us equally?

 

[Dvrjon]

Threadjack: The answer is simplistic, but letʻs try to stay on the Duncan process and arguments.

I never understood how a person in arizona is more free then I am. Are we not all Americans? How does the Constitution not apply to all of us equally?

U.S Constitution, Article 1, Section 8; Powers of Congress
10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Unless specified, that leaves the States open to determine what the rule should be (2A is the prime example) and when conflict arises, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison

Thatʻs how Roe got overturned, and the issue is now regulated by individual states.
/Threadjack