The US Division of Justice has taken a rare step in a Second Modification case that might reshape firearms regulation nationwide. On January 5, 2026, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division filed an en banc transient supporting gun homeowners who’re difficult California’s ammunition background examine system, declaring the state’s regulatory scheme “straightforwardly unconstitutional.”
The submitting marks a dramatic reversal of conventional federal positioning. Somewhat than defending gun management measures or remaining impartial, the DOJ now argues that California’s Proposition 63 ammunition regime violates the Second Modification by utilizing bureaucratic complexity as a weapon towards lawful gun possession.
Rhode v. Bonta facilities on California’s 2019 ammunition management system created via Proposition 63. The plaintiffs embody Olympic shooter Kim Rhode, the Nationwide Rifle Affiliation, the California Rifle and Pistol Affiliation, ammunition sellers, and particular person gun homeowners. They argue that California’s regulation imposes two unconstitutional necessities on residents exercising their Second Modification rights.
First, the regulation mandates a state background examine for each single ammunition buy. Second, it successfully prohibits direct gross sales from out of state distributors by requiring all transactions to circulate via California licensed sellers. The plaintiffs contend these restrictions meaningfully burden law-abiding residents’ potential to maintain operable firearms and lack any historic precedent in American firearms regulation.
The constitutional argument rests on an easy premise. An unloaded firearm is ineffective for self protection. If ammunition is important to exercising the proper to bear arms, then any system that blocks or considerably hampers ammunition acquisition regulates the core Second Modification proper itself.
California’s regulation created the nation’s first point-of-sale ammunition background examine system. Each ammunition transaction should happen via a licensed California ammunition vendor in individual and move via the California DOJ background examine system. Direct shipments from out-of-state distributors to people are prohibited.
Reside Stock Value Checker
The system affords 4 paths for every buy, all requiring charges and contemporary checks. The usual examine prices roughly $5 however stays legitimate for less than 18 hours. The fundamental examine carries the next charge of roughly $19 and might take days to course of. A Certificates of Eligibility route requires a separate DOJ issued certificates costing $22 {dollars} plus $5 per transaction.
The operational report reveals extreme issues. Tens of hundreds of lawful consumers face rejection yearly attributable to deal with mismatches or database errors, not as a result of they’re prohibited individuals. Proof confirmed that over one third of rejected lawful consumers nonetheless couldn’t buy ammunition six months later. Solely a tiny fraction of checks really block prohibited individuals.
After the Supreme Court docket’s landmark determination in New York State Rifle & Pistol Affiliation v. Bruen, Choose Roger Benitez issued a everlasting injunction towards California’s regulation in January 2024. On July 24, 2025, a three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed that call. Nevertheless, California petitioned for en banc rehearing, and on December 1, 2025, the total Ninth Circuit granted the petition, vacated the panel determination, and revived California’s regulation pending en banc overview.
The Justice Division’s January 5 transient represents a significant institutional shift. Signed by Assistant Legal professional Basic Harmeet Ok. Dhillon with senior Civil Rights Division officers, the transient affirmatively backs gun homeowners towards a state regulation. Concurrently, a coalition of roughly 25 to 26 states filed their very own amicus transient supporting the challengers.
The Justice Division constructs its argument on the Supreme Court docket’s framework in Bruen. The DOJ emphasizes that the proper to “bear arms” means the proper to be “armed and prepared for offensive or defensive motion.” The appropriate protects operable arms, and each firearms and ammunition are essential to that proper. The transient cites Jackson v. San Francisco, noting that “with out bullets, the proper to bear arms can be meaningless.”
The DOJ’s most vital transfer entails making objective central to constitutional evaluation. Drawing on founding period scholarship, the transient argues that “infringement” on the founding meant rules serving “pretextual repressive functions.” The DOJ factors to English sport legal guidelines, formally about sport preservation however functionally mechanisms to disarm populations, and submit Civil Conflict black codes as examples of pretextual infringements.
The transient concludes {that a} firearms restriction looking for to frustrate the train of the proper to maintain and bear arms constitutes a per se violation of the Second Modification, no matter burden severity.
Rhode v. Bonta has turn out to be a take a look at case for whether or not states can use procedural mechanisms to not directly nullify Second Modification rights. The case stays earlier than the Ninth Circuit’s en banc panel with oral argument scheduled for late March 2026. Given the Justice Division’s place and the multistate coalition, if the en banc Ninth Circuit upholds California’s system, a Supreme Court docket petition turns into extremely possible.
Whether or not the Ninth Circuit will embrace this federal argument or chart a special course stays the query that might reshape firearms regulation throughout America.
About José Niño
José Niño is a contract author primarily based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You’ll be able to contact him through Fb and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack e-newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
A few of the hyperlinks on this web page are affiliate hyperlinks, that means at no extra value to you, Ammoland will earn a fee if you happen to click on via and make a purchase order.
