California Gun Laws That Got Reversed or Challenged

The Post-Bruen Legal Landscape

On June 23, 2022, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, fundamentally altering the legal framework courts use to evaluate firearms regulations. Before Bruen, most federal circuits applied a two-step test: first, determine whether the challenged law burdened conduct protected by the Second Amendment; second, apply some level of means-end scrutiny (usually intermediate scrutiny). Under this framework, nearly every gun control law survived judicial review.

Bruen replaced this with a single, history-focused test. Under the new standard, when the Second Amendment's plain text covers an individual's conduct, the government bears the burden of justifying its regulation by demonstrating that it is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation." This means the government must identify historical analogues — regulations from the Founding Era (1791) or Reconstruction Era (1868) — that are relevantly similar to the modern law in both how and why they burden the right to keep and bear arms.

The implications for California were immediate and seismic. The state has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the country, and virtually all of them were enacted in the 20th and 21st centuries with no clear historical analogues. Multiple lawsuits that had been in various stages of litigation were remanded for reconsideration under the new Bruen framework, and new challenges were filed.

Duncan v. Bonta — The Magazine Ban

Background

California's ban on the possession of magazines holding more than 10 rounds was enacted in stages. Cal. Penal Code § 32310 originally prohibited only the manufacture, import, and sale of large-capacity magazines (LCMs) beginning in 2000. In 2016, voters passed Proposition 63, which expanded the law to ban mere possession of LCMs, even those acquired before the ban. This meant millions of lawfully acquired magazines became illegal overnight.

Virginia Duncan and other plaintiffs sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta (initially Xavier Becerra), challenging the possession ban as unconstitutional. The case has been through an extraordinary number of proceedings.

Timeline

Current Status

As of February 2026, the magazine ban remains in effect in California. The 9th Circuit's en banc decision in March 2025 upheld the law, though by a razor-thin 8-7 margin. The majority opinion relied on historical laws banning "dangerous and unusual weapons" and Bowie knife regulations from the 19th century. The dissent, led by Judge VanDyke, argued forcefully that magazines are protected "arms" under Bruen and that no historical evidence supports a ban on standard-capacity magazines that have been in common use for over a century.

The cert petition filed in August 2025 asks the Supreme Court to take the case. Given the sharp circuit split (other circuits have struck down similar bans) and the 9th Circuit's deeply divided decision, many legal observers believe the Court will grant certiorari. If the Court takes the case, a decision would likely come in the 2026-2027 term.

Miller v. Bonta — The Assault Weapons Ban

Background

California's assault weapons ban is one of the oldest in the nation. First enacted in 1989 as the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act Cal. Penal Code § 30500–30530, the law has been expanded multiple times. It bans semiautomatic firearms by name and by features, including any semiautomatic centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and one or more specified features (pistol grip, thumbhole stock, folding or telescoping stock, grenade or flare launcher, flash suppressor, or forward pistol grip).

James Miller and other plaintiffs challenged the law in the Southern District of California before Judge Roger Benitez, the same judge handling Duncan.

Timeline

Current Status

The assault weapons ban remains in effect in California. Judge Benitez's second ruling was more detailed and specifically addressed the Bruen historical-tradition test, finding that the government failed to identify any historical analogue to banning common semiautomatic rifles. He noted that the AR-15 platform is the most popular rifle in America, with an estimated 24 million in civilian hands, and that under Heller's "in common use for lawful purposes" standard and Bruen's historical-tradition test, the ban is unconstitutional.

However, the ruling was immediately stayed pending the 9th Circuit appeal. Given the 9th Circuit's track record in Duncan, many expect the court to uphold the ban. If so, the case will almost certainly be petitioned to the Supreme Court, potentially alongside Duncan and similar challenges from other states.

Baird v. Bonta — Open Carry Struck Down

Background

California effectively banned all forms of open carry through a series of laws: unloaded open carry of handguns was banned in 2012 Cal. Penal Code § 26350, unloaded open carry of long guns in incorporated areas was banned in 2013 Cal. Penal Code § 26400, and loaded open carry had been banned since 1967 Cal. Penal Code § 25850 (the Mulford Act, originally enacted in response to Black Panther demonstrations).

Combined with the state's restrictive concealed carry permitting regime (which, before Bruen, required showing "good cause"), these laws effectively eliminated the ability of many Californians to carry firearms in public at all.

After Bruen struck down New York's "proper cause" requirement for concealed carry permits, California moved to a shall-issue system under SB 2. However, SB 2 simultaneously created an extensive list of "sensitive places" where carry was prohibited, and the open carry ban remained in place. Charles Baird and other plaintiffs argued that the combination of the open carry ban with the restrictive concealed carry regime violated the Second Amendment.

Timeline

Current Status

In January 2026, a federal court struck down California's ban on open carry, finding that the Bruen historical-tradition test clearly protects the right to openly carry firearms. The court noted that open carry was the preferred mode of carrying arms throughout American history, and that the right to "bear" arms inherently includes carrying them openly in public.

However, the ruling's practical impact is uncertain. The state has appealed and may seek a stay. Additionally, even if open carry is ultimately legalized, local ordinances and the SB 2 sensitive places framework could still significantly restrict where open carry is permitted. Gun owners should not begin openly carrying firearms in California until all appeals are resolved and the law is clearly established.

Rupp v. Bonta — Another Assault Weapons Challenge

Background

Rupp v. Bonta is a parallel challenge to California's assault weapons ban, filed in the Central District of California (as opposed to Miller, which is in the Southern District). The plaintiffs argue the same core constitutional claim: that California's ban on common semiautomatic firearms violates the Second Amendment as interpreted by Heller and Bruen.

Current Status

The case was remanded by the 9th Circuit after Bruen for reconsideration. Unlike Miller, the district court in Rupp has not yet issued a ruling under the Bruen framework. The case is proceeding on a parallel track and may ultimately be consolidated with Miller at the appellate level. Both cases present the same fundamental question: does the Second Amendment protect commonly owned semiautomatic rifles from being banned?

May v. Bonta — SB 2 Sensitive Places

Background

After Bruen forced California to adopt a shall-issue concealed carry system, the legislature responded with Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), signed by Governor Newsom in September 2023. While SB 2 removed the "good cause" requirement for CCW permits, it simultaneously created a sweeping list of 26 "sensitive places" where concealed carry would be prohibited, effectively restricting carry in most public spaces.

Multiple plaintiffs, including the California Rifle & Pistol Association, challenged SB 2's sensitive places provisions as unconstitutional.

Timeline

Current Status

The 9th Circuit's September 2024 ruling created a split: 20 of the 26 sensitive place categories are currently enforceable, while 6 were blocked as likely unconstitutional. The court applied Bruen's test and found that some locations (like schools and government buildings) had clear historical support as "sensitive places," while others (like all private property by default, parking lots, and public parks) did not. For a full breakdown of which locations are enforceable and which are blocked, see our SB 2 Sensitive Places CCW Guide.

What the "Text, History, and Tradition" Test Means for Future Cases

The Bruen test has fundamentally changed how firearms litigation works in every federal court. Here is what the standard means in practice:

Step 1: Does the Second Amendment's Plain Text Apply?

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms." Under Heller, this extends to arms that are "in common use for lawful purposes" and is not limited to weapons that existed in 1791. This means modern firearms like semiautomatic rifles and pistols are protected. The government can argue that certain categories of weapons (like machine guns) are "dangerous and unusual weapons" outside the scope of the amendment, but this is a narrow exception.

Step 2: Is There a Historical Tradition Supporting the Regulation?

If the plain text applies, the burden shifts entirely to the government. The government must produce evidence of historical regulations that are "relevantly similar" to the modern law. Courts look at two metrics:

• "How" — the mechanism by which the historical law burdened the right (e.g., a total ban vs. a time/place/manner restriction)
• "Why" — the justification for the historical law (e.g., preventing harm in sensitive places vs. disarming disfavored groups)

The historical analogue does not need to be a "twin" — it can be a "historical analogue" that is relevantly similar. But the government cannot simply invoke "public safety" or "reducing gun violence" as a justification. It must tie the modern regulation to a historical tradition.

What This Means for California

California's firearms regulatory scheme is largely a product of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. The assault weapons ban (1989), the magazine ban (2000/2016), the handgun roster (2001), the ammunition background check (2019), and the sensitive places framework (2024) all lack direct historical analogues from the Founding or Reconstruction Eras. This makes them vulnerable under the Bruen framework.

However, the 9th Circuit has shown a willingness to find historical analogues where other courts have not. The circuit's en banc decision in Duncan relied on 19th-century Bowie knife regulations and trap-gun laws as analogues for the magazine ban — a comparison that many legal scholars have criticized as a stretch. This tension between the 9th Circuit's approach and the Supreme Court's instructions in Bruen is likely to produce multiple cert petitions in the coming years.

Master Case Tracker: California Gun Law Challenges

What Gun Owners Should Know Right Now

If you are a gun owner in California, here is the practical takeaway as of February 2026:

1. The magazine ban is enforceable. Do not purchase, import, or possess magazines over 10 rounds in California unless you legally acquired them during Freedom Week (March 29 – April 5, 2019). Even then, exercise caution and keep any proof of purchase.
2. The assault weapons ban is enforceable. All features-based restrictions remain in effect. Do not configure any firearm in a way that meets the assault weapon definition under Cal. Penal Code § 30515.
3. Open carry is still legally uncertain. The January 2026 ruling struck down the ban, but the state will appeal. Do not openly carry firearms until the legal situation is fully resolved.
4. SB 2 sensitive places are partially enforceable. If you have a CCW permit, familiarize yourself with which 20 locations are restricted and which 6 were blocked. See our detailed SB 2 guide.
5. Stay informed. These cases are actively moving through the courts. A Supreme Court cert grant in Duncan could change everything within months.