Breaking: Major Update In Rhode v. Bonta at 9th Circuit Court Of Appeals

Published on August 9, 2025
Duration: 6:39

This video discusses the legal landscape surrounding two significant Second Amendment cases in California: Nwin Viv Bonta, which successfully challenged the state's 1 in 30 law, and Rhode v. Bonta, which targets the state's ammunition background check scheme. While Nwin Viv Bonta resulted in a victory for gun rights advocates, Rhode v. Bonta is now facing an en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit, a process that historically favors the state. The outcome of Rhode v. Bonta could have significant implications for firearm and ammunition accessibility in California.

Quick Summary

Rhode v. Bonta challenges California's ammunition background check law, requiring checks and fees for every transaction. California has petitioned for an en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit, a process historically favoring the state in Second Amendment cases. This could impact the future of ammunition accessibility in California.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction: Nwin Viv Bonta Victory
  2. 00:39Bad News: Rhode v. Bonta Jeopardy
  3. 01:04Support the Channel
  4. 01:24Rhode v. Bonta: Ammunition Background Checks
  5. 02:10Prop 63 and its Impact
  6. 02:20Three-Judge Panel Decision
  7. 02:31Post-Decision Chaos and California DOJ Memo
  8. 02:53California Petitions for En Banc Rehearing
  9. 03:09Unconstitutionality of California's Law
  10. 03:12Lack of Historical Precedent
  11. 03:53The 'Voted For It' Argument
  12. 04:17What 'En Banc' Means
  13. 04:40Historical Outcomes of En Banc Rehearings
  14. 05:01Alternative: Ninth Circuit Declines Rehearing
  15. 05:17Appeal to the Supreme Court
  16. 05:25Plaintiffs' Response Deadline
  17. 06:01Conclusion and Future Updates

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the outcome of the Nwin Viv Bonta case regarding California's '1 in 30' law?

The Nwin Viv Bonta case resulted in a major victory for gun rights advocates. A unanimous three-judge panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled California's '1 in 30' law, which limits firearm purchases to one every 30 days, unconstitutional. This decision stands as California did not seek an en banc rehearing.

What is the Rhode v. Bonta case about and what is its current status?

Rhode v. Bonta challenges California's ammunition background check scheme, requiring checks and fees for every transaction and prohibiting direct shipment. The case is currently in jeopardy as California has petitioned for an en banc rehearing at the Ninth Circuit, meaning a larger panel will review the prior decision.

What are the potential implications of an en banc rehearing in the Rhode v. Bonta case?

An en banc rehearing involves a larger group of judges from the Ninth Circuit. Historically, these rehearings have often sided with the state in Second Amendment cases. This suggests that the outcome for Rhode v. Bonta might be unfavorable to the plaintiffs, potentially upholding California's ammunition background check laws.

What arguments are being made against California's ammunition background check law?

Arguments against the law include its unconstitutionality, lack of historical precedent in firearms regulation, and the creation of numerous false positives that prevent legal purchases. The speaker also contends that laws passed by popular vote cannot override constitutional rights if they infringe upon them.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Copper Jacket TV

View all →