Ninth Circuit Slaps Down California’s Gun Advertising Ban as Unconstitutional
California’s Gun Control Agenda Just Took a Major Hit in Federal Court.
In a landmark decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled that California’s controversial ban on firearm-related advertising to minors is entirely unconstitutional. The court’s sharp rebuke marks a decisive win for both the First Amendment and the Second Amendment—and it sends a warning to other states pushing similar speech restrictions under the guise of “gun safety.”
🚨 What the Law Tried to Do
California’s now-defunct statute prohibited “firearm industry members” from:
- Marketing or advertising any gun-related product in a way that might appeal to minors,
- Using or collecting minors’ personal data for marketing purposes,
- With penalties up to $25,000 per violation, enforceable by the state’s Attorney General.
In other words, California tried to erase youth-related gun culture from public view—shutting down publications like Junior Shooters magazine and preventing basic communication about youth shooting sports.
🧑⚖️ What the Ninth Circuit Said
The case—Junior Sports Magazines Inc. v. Rob Bonta—was brought by several plaintiffs, including the publishers of Junior Shooters, who rightly argued that the law was an assault on free speech.
The Ninth Circuit agreed. In a blistering opinion, the three-judge panel ruled:
- The statute violates the First Amendment, even under intermediate scrutiny.
- California can’t claim to oppose youth gun use while actively encouraging it through discounted hunting licenses,
- The district court was wrong to allow any part of the law to stand—the entire statute must go.
💡 Legal Hypocrisy Exposed
California’s biggest mistake? Its own hunting policies.
The court highlighted that the state offers discounted hunting licenses to minors, which directly undercuts its argument that firearm use by young people is inherently dangerous or should be discouraged.
That contradiction was the state’s undoing. It’s a textbook example of why legal strategy must consider the broader landscape: when your policies collide in court, the whole anti-gun agenda can unravel.
📺 Embedded Video from The Four Boxes Diner
A special thank you to Mark Smith—constitutional attorney, gun rights advocate, and host of The Four Boxes Diner—for his detailed breakdown of this important case. His legal insight helps gun owners across the country understand how courtroom battles impact our rights on the ground.
🔗 Why This Matters to You
If the government can ban talking about guns, it’s only a step away from banning owning them.
Free speech is essential to protecting the right to keep and bear arms. If you can’t advertise a youth shooting league, publish a magazine, or sell training materials, the gun community starts to disappear, especially for the next generation.
This ruling reaffirms that the Constitution protects not just our ability to own firearms, but to talk about them.
🥇 Kudos to the Winning Team
Congratulations to:
- Second Amendment Foundation (SAF)
- Gun Owners of California, Inc
- California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA)
- And all the plaintiffs and attorneys who stood up to California’s unconstitutional censorship.
This win strengthens our rights and sets a precedent that could protect gun-related speech nationwide.
📢 Stay Vigilant
As always, anti-gun lawmakers will regroup. Expect California to look for a workaround or appeal. Stay informed, support pro-2A legal efforts, and help educate others about the ongoing legal battles that shape our freedom.
Subscribe to ConcealedCarry.com for updates, analysis, and training that keeps you armed—in every sense of the word.
