California Smacked Down to Tune of $1.3 Million Over Marketing Ban

No one is ever going to be shocked by anything anti-gun coming out of California. I mean, the governor of the state is pushing a constitutional amendment that essentially erases the Second Amendment and codifies certain gun control measures in the Constitution itself. Can we really be shocked by much else from the state?

But their ban on gun marketing to minors was particularly ridiculous.

First, it’s not like anyone was running gun ads on Cartoon Network. Kids who saw such marketing were in households that already had guns because the marketing was in pro-gun publications or websites that the kids weren’t likely to come across otherwise.

Then there was the whole free speech thing.

California didn’t care, and now it’s costing them.

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.

…

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.

It also seems that Safari Club International is also getting another $480,000 in a separate case on the same issue.

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/aPTRmdw6G2

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) March 17, 2026

Honestly, the only part of this outcome that surprises me is that the District Court was dumb enough to think this was constitutional in the first place. It never was, and I honestly think a case like this should serve as a litmus test for whether a federal judge actually understands the Constitution in the first place. 

What matters, though, is that California lost and lost bigly. No, the money won’t matter all that much to the state. It’s not Newsom’s money, after all, and considering the size of the Golden State’s budget, there’s no chance of anyone even noticing the payment.

But that’s not the point, is it?

The point is that lawmakers there and elsewhere thought they could control not just who could buy guns, but who guns could be made for. This was about a .22 version of an AR-15 that was marketed toward young shooters. It was scary looking, and so anti-gunners started scrambling. Never mind that there have been youth models of guns for about as long as there have been guns. I’ve got my great-grandfather’s rifle, which was meant for junior shooters, and that wasn’t the first model either. Hell, it was even semi-automatic, for the record.

But the JR-15 looked scarier than those.

Now, the state is going to pay out to the very entities he vehemently opposes on gun issues. While it won’t do much to California, it’s a nice little infusion of cash for the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and Safari Club International.

And it’s a nice little source of belly laughs for yours truly.

Editor’s Note: The radical left will stop at nothing to enact their radical gun control agenda and strip us of our Second Amendment rights.

Help us continue to report on and expose the Democrats’ gun control policies and schemes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.