In an unexpected but welcome development, the Ninth Circuit may be facing a turning point in Second Amendment litigation. In Rhode v. Bonta, a long-running challenge to California’s ammunition background check system, the U.S. Department of Justice has officially entered the fight—on the side of gun owners.

The case, brought by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, challenges California’s requirement that residents undergo a background check and pay a fee for every single ammunition purchase. Originally filed in 2018, the lawsuit highlights how the law has denied lawful Californians access to ammunition through excessive fees, repeated checks, bureaucratic errors, and outright rejections.

A federal district court first struck the law down as unconstitutional, with the judge famously noting that California’s “experiment” had failed and gravely injured Second Amendment rights. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit later agreed, ruling the law was designed to discourage lawful participation. As expected, the full Ninth Circuit vacated that ruling and granted an en banc rehearing, with oral arguments scheduled for March.

What changes everything is the new amicus brief filed by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In unusually direct language, the DOJ described California’s ammunition background check system as “onerous,” “cumbersome,” “Byzantine,” and historically unprecedented. The brief makes a critical point: the Second Amendment protects operable arms, and firearms are useless without ammunition. As a result, the ability to acquire ammunition is squarely protected by the Constitution.

The DOJ flatly rejected California’s argument that ammunition regulations fall outside the Second Amendment and emphasized that no historical tradition exists for background checks on every ammo purchase. Tens of thousands of lawful gun owners are wrongly denied each year due to paperwork errors—not criminal disqualification—underscoring that the system burdens rights rather than promoting safety.

While a win is never guaranteed at the Ninth Circuit, the DOJ’s support gives this case new momentum. If the court rules in favor of gun owners en banc, it would represent a rare and significant shift—one that could reshape how courts view bureaucratic restrictions on constitutional rights nationwide.