AGAIN?? The Ninth Circuit's Pattern of Anti-2A Bias Just Struck Again

Published on December 3, 2025
Duration: 25:22

This video discusses the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision to rehear the RODE v. BONT case concerning California's ammunition background check regulations. The discussion highlights the legal arguments surrounding the Second Amendment, the Bruen methodology, and the perceived bias within the Ninth Circuit. It explores the state's justification for the regulations versus the plaintiffs' claims of undue burden on law-abiding citizens.

Quick Summary

The Ninth Circuit is rehearing the RODE v. BONT case, challenging California's ammunition background check laws. The state argues the original ruling conflicts with precedent and the Bruen methodology, while plaintiffs claim the system burdens law-abiding citizens and is ineffective.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Ninth Circuit's Anti-2A Bias
  2. 00:40Introduction to RODE v. BONT Case
  3. 01:31Original Panel Opinion on Ammo Checks
  4. 02:31State's Petition for En Banc Rehearing
  5. 04:35Critique of State's Argument
  6. 05:00Ninth Circuit Bias Concerns
  7. 06:44History of En Banc Panel Outcomes
  8. 07:44Amicus Briefs from Gun Control Groups
  9. 09:06Methodology vs. Policy Decisions
  10. 10:00Impact of Complex Gun Laws
  11. 11:19Cost of Ineffective Laws
  12. 12:06State's Claimed Success of Background Checks
  13. 13:17Plaintiffs' Response to State's Claims
  14. 14:48At What Cost? Analysis
  15. 17:37Order Granting Rehearing
  16. 18:00En Banc Oral Argument Schedule
  17. 18:38Final Thoughts on Rehearing
  18. 19:41Anticipating Briefs and Amicus Support
  19. 20:23Broader Implications of Precedent
  20. 21:20Supreme Court's Role in Methodology
  21. 22:06Speculating on Panel Composition
  22. 22:37Support for CRPA and Second Amendment Law
  23. 23:45Sponsors and Channel Support

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the RODE v. BONT case about?

The RODE v. BONT case concerns California's ammunition background check regulations. A three-judge panel initially ruled these checks facially violated the Second Amendment, but the state successfully petitioned for an en banc rehearing by the Ninth Circuit.

Why did the Ninth Circuit grant an en banc rehearing for the ammunition background check case?

California petitioned for an en banc rehearing, arguing the original panel's decision conflicted with precedent and distorted the Bruen analysis. They contended that regulations on ammunition sales are presumptively lawful if they are conditions on commercial sale, and the panel's ruling could invalidate many existing firearms laws.

What is the Bruen methodology in Second Amendment law?

The Bruen methodology, established by the Supreme Court, requires plaintiffs to first show that a challenged law meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms. If this is established, the burden shifts to the government to demonstrate a historical tradition of regulation supporting the law.

What are the arguments against California's ammunition background check system?

Plaintiffs argue the system is riddled with glitches, imposes onerous burdens, and stymies tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens. They contend that the system's purported success in stopping hundreds of prohibited individuals comes at the cost of infringing on the rights of many others.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from CRPA TV

View all →