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!
The Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's private-property default carry prohibition while reaffirming the historical framework established in Bruen for evaluating "sensitive places" restrictions. Although the Court did not invalidate other categories of sensitive places, its reasoning is expected to significantly influence ongoing challenges to similar laws in states such as California and New York.
Importantly, the Supreme Court agreed to review only the constitutionality of bans on AR-15-style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms. Although related magazine-capacity restrictions exist in these cases, the Court did not grant review of those issues, leaving them to be addressed separately in future litigation.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, a landmark Second Amendment case challenging Illinois' ban on AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. The Court consolidated the case with Grant v. Higgins, a similar challenge out of Connecticut, and will hear both together during a single oral argument.
Importantly, the Supreme Court agreed to review only the constitutionality of bans on AR-15-style rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms. Although related magazine-capacity restrictions exist in these cases, the Court did not grant review of those issues, leaving them to be addressed separately in future litigation.
The primary legal challenge to California's 11% firearms and ammunition excise tax (AB 28). In June 2026, the Sacramento County Superior Court sustained part of the State's demurrer but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint, allowing the case to move forward. The court concluded the plaintiffs must better allege how the tax meaningfully burdens the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, meaning the challenge remains active and has not been dismissed.
This challenged the state of California’s legislation to prohibit firearm advertising, which it claimed was “reasonably appears to be attractive to minors.” A lawsuit was filed immediately by a robust coalition of 2A organizations, and the scheme was ruled unconstitutional in 2024. Earlier this year, however, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California certified a settlement between the Attorney General and the plaintiffs; the state must pay the legal fees of every plaintiff to the tune of 1.3 million dollars.
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. Thus, the ban is constitutional as applied to individuals found to be credible threats to intimate partners.
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.
Jones v. Bonta challenges California's prohibition on the sale of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. After the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit's original decision for reconsideration under Bruen, the case was mistakenly assigned to a different three-judge panel. The Ninth Circuit later acknowledged the procedural error, vacated those proceedings, and returned the case to the original panel that had previously ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Following new oral arguments, the case remains pending before the Ninth Circuit, with a decision expected.
United States v. Peterson centered on whether firearm suppressors are protected "arms" under the Second Amendment. After withdrawing an earlier opinion that held suppressors were not protected, the Fifth Circuit issued a substituted decision assuming—without deciding—that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment. The court nevertheless upheld the National Firearms Act's suppressor registration requirements, concluding they function as a presumptively constitutional "shall-issue" licensing system and finding that Peterson failed to demonstrate the law was unconstitutional as applied to him. The U.S. Supreme Court later declined to hear the case, leaving the Fifth Circuit's decision in place.
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.
Antonyuk v. Hochul (formerly Antonyuk v. Negrelli) is the leading challenge to New York's Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), which imposed sweeping new restrictions on licensed concealed carry following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the Second Circuit's preliminary injunction decision, the case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the merits. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down Hawaii's private-property default carry restriction, may significantly influence the remaining litigation, particularly because New York's law contains a nearly identical provision.
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 hears the case.
UPDATE: The Federal DOJs Civil rights division has submitted an amicus brief and presented oral arguments in favor of Kim Rhode in March of 2026, and were both technical and testy but may have set the stage for a positive outcome for lawful gun owners.
RULING 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 v. United States centered on Missouri’s 2021 Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), a law that declared several federal gun regulations “invalid” within the state and barred local police from helping enforce them. The federal government sued, arguing the law violated the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law the supreme law of the land. Both a district court and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, striking SAPA down as unconstitutional. Missouri appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but on October 6, 2025, the Court declined to hear the case, leaving the lower court’s ruling intact and effectively ending Missouri’s attempt to nullify federal gun laws.
A recent decision, however, from the DC Court of Appeals could provide some incentive to have the case heard. Because Washington DC’s magazine ban was overturned in Benson v. United States, the door has been cracked for SCOTUS to hear the challenge to California’s standard capacity magazine ban and a few others – none of which have been granted certiorari.
Gator's Custom Guns v. Washington challenges Washington's ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. After the Washington Supreme Court upheld the law, the plaintiffs petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review. Like Duncan v. Bonta, the petition remains pending before the Supreme Court and has been held over to the Court's next Term without a decision on whether to grant or deny certiorari. The outcome could have significant implications for magazine capacity restrictions nationwide. Unlike Duncan v. Bonta, Gator's Custom Guns squarely asks whether detachable magazines are "Arms" protected by the Second Amendment.
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. However, in October of 2025, Gov. Newsom signed AB 1078 into law — which limits firearm purchases to three in a 30-day period. Beginning April 1st, 2026. GOC will be filing either a lawsuit or amicus support briefs against this unconstitutional law.
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, the federal challenge to California's "assault weapon" ban, is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On July 1, 2026, the Ninth Circuit vacated submission of the case and formally ordered it held pending the U.S. Supreme Court's resolution of the consolidated cases Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, which will determine whether AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles are protected by the Second Amendment. The outcome of those cases is expected to directly shape the Ninth Circuit's ultimate decision in Miller.
The challenge to California's ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, remains pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. After being relisted for conference more than 20 times, at the end of June 2026, the Court held the case over to its next Term without granting or denying review. While the Court has not explained its reasoning, many legal observers believe it may be waiting for its forthcoming decision in Viramontes v. Cook County, which could provide important guidance on the scope of Second Amendment protections before determining how to proceed with Duncan.
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. A decision on Boland will likely not occur until the Duncan v. Bonta case is either granted or denied cert by SCOTUS.
A Ninth Circuit case challenging two Hawaii gun laws — one requiring buyers to complete handgun purchases within 10 days of getting a permit, and another requiring new gun owners to bring the firearm to police for inspection within five days. In March 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel struck both laws down as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, finding they lacked historical justification. However, in July 2025, the Ninth Circuit granted en banc review, vacating the panel’s ruling, so the case is now awaiting a full court rehearing. As of March 2026, Hawaii now claims those changes to the law should end the litigation altogether. Hawaii has used this tactic before to avoid court losses. PENDING