A sure way to start a heated discussion is to mention the role of guns in our society. Arguments over interpreting the Second Amendment will bring passion on both sides, with any accord unlikely to surface. With recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court favoring the rights of gun owners, any legislation mentioning firearms draws attention, debate, and contention.
This was evidenced during California's long-running battle to be permitted to enforce an amended version of Proposition 63, which voters passed in 2016. While the original text required gun owners to obtain a four-year permit from the Justice Department to purchase ammunition from licensed dealers and revoke their permits if they became prohibited, the amended version added a background check with each purchase and a potential $1 fee. It also blocked gun owners from directly purchasing ammunition from outside California and having it shipped in.
After losing in the lower court, California's appeal also proved unsuccessful. On July 24, 2025, a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel issued a split decision affirming the permanent ban against enforcing Proposition 63. The majority cited New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen in noting that the state failed to find a historical analogue in policy from the 18th century. Bruen set a precedent that reshaped the way lower courts examine gun laws.
Looks Like There's Trouble Bruen
Before 2016, California didn't regulate ammunition purchases with the same level of scrutiny as the sale of firearms. In July 2016, the state added requirements for vendors selling ammunition to get a yearly permit from the Justice Department and to conduct a background check on those purchasing bullets to ensure they weren't on a prohibited list. It also banned California gun owners from purchasing ammunition from outside the state and from having large-capacity magazines.
Proposition 63 passed easily in 2016, with over 63% of voters approving the measure. The legislature's amendments included requiring vendors to conduct a background check for every ammunition purchase and allowing the Justice Department to collect a $1 processing fee.
Opposition to the new laws was swift and ferocious. 2017's Duncan v. Becerra, which later became Duncan v. Bonta after a change of the state's attorney general, was a see-saw legal battle focusing on the legality of California's new ban on large-capacity magazines. While ruled unconstitutional in the lower courts and upheld on first appeal, an en banc decision reversed and remanded in the aftermath of Bruen in 2022. The ban was ruled constitutional in March 2025 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
2018 saw the filing of Rhode v. Becerra, which ended up as Rhode v. Bonta. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of placing restrictions on ammunition purchases. Arguing that bullets are a necessary part of a firearm and thus protected by the Second Amendment, it won an injunction against the prohibition banning the purchasing of ammunition out of state in 2020. Two days later, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the injunction.
The 2022 Bruen decision saw the injunction vacated and the case remanded. From that point, California suffered legal defeats culminating in the July 24, 2025, split-decision ruling from a Ninth Circuit panel upholding the lower court's permanent injunction enjoining the state from enforcing any of Prop 63.
Send Lawyers, Guns, and Money
The decision is being hailed by gun owners and gun rights activists as a major victory. The majority of the panel deemed the possible $1 charge and the possibility of delay due to background checks, even if minor, as a constraint on a citizen's right to have "operable arms" as protected by the Second Amendment.
In a flame-throwing dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Jay Bybee blasted the majority for "ignoring precedent" and producing a decision that could be applied to render every gun control law unconstitutional. While asserting that his fellow panel members had contradicted Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller, Bybee noted that Prop 63 hadn't intruded on a Californian's right to purchase as much ammunition as they wanted to. As fiery as his objection to the decision was, it doesn't change the outcome.
Related Resources
- Appealing a Court Decision of Judgment (FindLaw's Filing a Lawsuit)
- Federal Courts Uphold Limits on Guns but Not Ammo (FindLaw's Blogs)
- Who Are "the People" Entitled To Bear Arms Under the Second Amendment? (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
