Court Cases & Briefs
Gun Owners of California has been knee deep in court cases for the past few years – and this is where we have achieved the majority of our wins. Given the political makeup at the Capitol in Sacramento, the courts are a vibrant and “target rich” environment for some solid 2A victories. The list below represents our current legal activity – whether as actual plaintiffs, filers of amicus (friends of the court) briefs or general support in the gathering of statistical data. Without question, battling it out in the courts has become key in our strategy to defend the Second Amendment – and it takes a significant amount of financial resources. Thank you for continuing to support us in these notable efforts!
An amicus (friend of the court brief) has been filed by GOC and CRPA that calls into question the constitutionality of Gun Violence Restraining Orders, or Red Flag Laws as they are commonly known. Notwithstanding the clear fact that plaintiff Zackey Rahimi is less than a model citizen, this does not excuse the government from violating any individual's civil rights without the constitutional protection of due process. This case was argued before SCOTUS in November of 2023 and resulted in a loss. However, it validated the Bruen methodology of deciding gun cases placed before the courts.
A lawsuit challenging Senate Bill 2 (SB2) was filed on September 12, 2023, just days after the bill was passed by the California legislature, which establishes the majority of the state as “sensitive places” and makes significant changes to Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) procedures and increase the costs of obtaining a permit by law-abiding citizens. It is an apparent attempt to circumvent the ruling from the United States Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v Bruen, which legally established California a “shall issue” state. The suit was filed by a robust contingent of 2A warriors as plaintiffs including YouTube sensations Reno May and Anthony Miranda (the Armed Scholar), and GOC/GOA/GOF, Second Amendment Foundation, Liberal Gun Owners Association and our trusted partners the CRPA. (See Complaint here.)
The Ninth Circuit has denied CRPA’s request for a full en banc rehearing, which means parts of California’s “sensitive places” carry ban under SB 2 are staying in effect for now. CRPA decided not to take this interim loss straight to the U.S. Supreme Court because the odds were low without a final judgment. Instead, they’re pushing the case back in the trial court to get a complete ruling on the entire law, which will make for a stronger appeal later. Until then, certain locations—like parks, bars, libraries, casinos, and stadiums—are off-limits for carry, while others like public transit, churches, banks, and most private property remain legal to carry in unless posted otherwise.
This case is still awaiting final ruling in the Central California District of the U.S. District Court of Appeals.
Centers on whether firearm suppressors are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. Peterson, charged for possessing an unregistered suppressor, argued the National Firearms Act’s registration requirement was unconstitutional. In February 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled suppressors are mere accessories, not “arms,” and upheld his conviction. However, after a DOJ policy shift in May acknowledging suppressors as protected arms (while still defending some regulation), the court withdrew its opinion. The case is now poised for further review, with potential nationwide implications for suppressor regulations. PENDING
On June 23, 2022, SCOTUS declared NY’s CCW system as unconstitutional and directed inferior courts – definitively - that two-step “balancing tests” can no longer be used by judges to decide gun control cases. The court ruled that only the text, history and tradition can be applied to evaluate cases. Bottom line, if the law or a similar law did not exist in 1791, it is unconstitutional. The cases of Heller, McDonald, Caetano and now Bruen must be used as a rock-solid basis to challenge ALL unconstitutional anti-Second Amendment laws across the country.
GOC/GOA/GOF filed an amicus brief on this landmark case.
On January 11th 2025, the Supreme Court denied the emergency application filed in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli asking the Court to vacate the Second Circuit’s stay of District Judge Suddaby’s preliminary injunction decision striking down substantial portions of New York’s post-Bruen gun law. Although the legal maneuverings are as complicated as they are confusing, this is a solid 2A win for us and demonstrates our amicus effectiveness.
Challenge to California’s Ammunition Sales Laws and Regulations. Ninth Circuit panel struck down California’s ammunition background check law, but the California DOJ immediately requested an en banc review in early Aug. 2025. That request keeps the panel’s ruling on hold, meaning the law remains in effect until the full Ninth Circuit either denies the review or issues a new decision. PENDING
On June 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected Mexico’s $10 billion lawsuit against several U.S. gun manufacturers in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. The Court ruled that the claims were barred by the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), finding Mexico’s allegations — that the companies knowingly aided cartel trafficking — failed to meet the legal standard for “aiding and abetting,” amounting instead to mere indifference. This decision shields U.S. gun makers from liability for crimes committed with their products in Mexico.. WIN
Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act—which told state officials not to enforce certain federal gun laws—was struck down by both the district court and the Eighth Circuit as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. Missouri has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, but the Court hasn’t yet decided whether it will hear it. Until then, the law remains blocked.
Currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Defending Missouri's 2nd Amendment Protection Act.
Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns challenges Washington State’s ban on the sale and manufacture of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The Washington Supreme Court upheld the law in May 2025, ruling that such magazines are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment or the state constitution. Gator’s Custom Guns has appealed by filing a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was docketed on August 8, 2025 (No. 25-153). The state’s response is due by September 8, 2025, after which the Court will decide whether to take the case.
Challenged Maryland’s ban on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles, arguing the law violated the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit upheld the ban. The case went to the Supreme Court, which denied review in June 2025—meaning the lower court’s decision stands. Notably, Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch voted to hear the case, and Justice Kavanaugh wrote that while he agreed review wasn’t warranted right now, he expects the Court to address the issue soon in another case.
In Fouts v. Bonta, plaintiffs challenged California’s long-standing ban on billy clubs (batons). In February 2024, a federal judge struck down the ban, ruling that under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, the state failed to show a historical tradition of such a prohibition. The court issued a permanent injunction, making the ban currently unenforceable. California’s Attorney General has appealed, and the case is now pending before the Ninth Circuit.
In Nguyen v. Bonta, plaintiffs successfully challenged California’s “one-gun-per-month” purchase limit as unconstitutional under the Bruen standard. In June 2025, a unanimous Ninth Circuit panel struck down the law, agreeing it lacks historical precedent. California recently declined to request an en banc review, possibly because pending legislation — AB 1078 — would instead limit firearm purchases to three in a 30-day period. Unless the state seeks U.S. Supreme Court review, the ruling stands and the old 30-day purchase restriction is gone for now.
In Baird v. Bonta, Mark Baird and Richard Gallardo challenged California’s near-total ban on openly carrying loaded handguns in public, arguing it violated their Second Amendment rights—especially given that open-carry permits are virtually non-existent in most counties. In December 2022, the district court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding the restriction was justified based on historical analysis. The plaintiffs appealed, and the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the case—a rare procedural rebuke of the trial court's approach. Oral arguments took place on June 24, 2025, and the case remains active and unresolved before the Ninth Circuit.
Miller v. Bonta is a challenge to California’s decades-old Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), which bans firearms defined by certain features. In June 2021, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez struck down the ban, calling the AR-15 a “Swiss Army knife” and ruling it unconstitutional. That decision was immediately stayed and appealed.
After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court to re-evaluate it under the updated historical-analysis framework. On remand, Judge Benitez again ruled the ban unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction—but that too was stayed pending further appeal.
The case is now pending before the Ninth Circuit once more, where it awaits a fresh decision under the Bruen standard. Authorities, including a coalition of state attorneys general, continue to defend the law as constitutionally permissible.
In Duncan v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit reviewed California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds). After being sent back to the lower court under the Bruen framework, a federal judge struck down the ban in 2023. The Ninth Circuit then issued an en banc decision in March 2025 upholding the ban and finding it consistent with historical tradition. Now, the California Rifle & Pistol Association has filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, signaling that the case could move up to the highest court.
In Boland v. Bonta, plaintiffs challenged California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), which restricts the sale of new semiautomatic pistols that lack specific safety features like a microstamping mechanism, chamber-load indicator, or magazine disconnect. In March 2023, a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction—temporarily halting enforcement of those feature requirements—allowing some new handguns to be sold in California for the first time in years. The state appealed, and the Ninth Circuit ultimately vacated the Boland case and combined it with the broader Duncan v. Bonta appeal, likely aiming for a unified resolution across related Second Amendment issues.
