https://www.ammoland.com/2026/03/california-must-pay-1-3-million-fees-newsom-gun-advertising-ban-struck-down/
On March 17, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, the court certified a settlement between the Attorney General of California and the plaintiffs in the case of Junior Sports
Magazines Inc. et al., and Rob Bonta. The 1st and 2nd Amendments were big winners. From the Court Order:
III. JUDICIAL DECLARATION
IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Section 22949.80, in its entirety, violates the 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs.
IV. PERMANENT INJUNCTION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall be permanently enjoined from enforcing section 22949.80. The Attorney General is further directed to issue an alert through an information bulletin or other ordinary communications notifying all District Attorneys, County Counsels, and City Attorneys in California that enforcement of Section 22949.80 has been permanently enjoined in its entirety.
In addition, the Attorney General was ordered to pay the lawyers' fees to the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the 2nd Amendment Foundation (SAF). Gavin Newsom, a proponent of this law, and the state of California will now pay the plaintiffs $1.38 million in fees.
This case began almost four years ago, when the California legislature passed
a statute banning the advertising of firearms to minors. The law became
Section 22949.80.
Several plaintiffs, including gun rights organizations, are challenging
changes in state law created by the passage of Assembly Bill 2571, which makes it unlawful for any firearm industry members to advertise, market, or arrange for placement of an advertising or marketing communication concerning any firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs are asking for a
preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law.
In October 2024, the District Court ruled against the 1st and 2nd Amendment defenders. The defenders immediately appealed to a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. On September 13, 2023, the three-judge panel reversed the District Court and found the law to be unconstitutional under the 1st Amendment. It was a unanimous decision. Then the State of California asked for an en banc panel to rehear the case and reverse the three-judge panel.
En banc reviews have been used in the Ninth Circuit to kill positive three-judge panel decisions on the 2nd Amendment. The Ninth Circuit refused to rehear the case en banc on February 28, 2024. The case was sent back to the District Court. On October 1, 2025, the Preliminary Injunction was ordered by the District Court. On March 17, 2026, the parties agreed to a settlement. As shown above, all of Section 22949.80 was struck down.
The agreed settlement, approved by the Court, awarded $550,000 to the law firm of Michel & Associates, P.C., which represented the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and $350,000 to the Law Offices of Donald Kilmer, which represented the 2nd Amendment Foundation (SAF). In addition, Kostas Moros reports on X that another $480,000 is to be paid in the Safari Club International case. Kostos reports that the two cases are on the same issues.
The law was an egregious violation of the 1st Amendment from the beginning,
and an attempt to stop support for the 2nd Amendment. It should never have
been passed. The State of California then compounded its contempt for the 1st and 2nd Amendments by dragging out this case for almost four years, costing
the state thousands of dollars in lawyers' fees.
The fees will not cost those who filed the bill and voted for the law, or
those who defended the law in court, any money at all. They were/are spending other people's money, after all, not their own. This is expected in
California.
--- PyGate Linux v1.5.13
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)