California Must Pay $1.3 Million in Fees After Newsom’s Gun Advertising Ban Is 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 First and Second Amendments were big winners.  From the Court Order:

III. JUDICIAL DECLARATION 

IT IS HEREBY DECLARED that Section 22949.80, in its entirety, violates the First 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 Second 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.

Gavin Newsom passed a law to attack the First Amendment because he was mad about a .22lr rifle that was meant for junior shooters.

That little stunt has cost California taxpayers over a million dollars, not including whatever CADOJ spent on their own lawyers.

$350k to SAF,… pic.twitter.com/zC31UxPvTn

— SAF (@2AFDN) March 17, 2026

This case began almost 4 years ago, when the California legislature passed a statute banning the advertising of firearms to minors. The law became Section 22949.80. Alan Gottlieb and Dave Workman wrote about it at AmmoLand in July of 2022:

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 First and Second 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 First 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. Alan Gottlieb wrote about it on AmmoLand.

En banc reviews have been used in the Ninth Circuit to kill positive three-judge panel decisions on the Second 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 Second 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 First Amendment from the beginning, an attempt to stop support for the Second Amendment. It should never have been passed. The State of California then compounded its contempt for the First and Second 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. This is expected in California.

New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.