Post-Bruen Litigation Landscape: California's Firearms Laws Under Fire

The Supreme Court's June 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen ^[1] triggered the most significant wave of Second Amendment litigation in American history. California, with what is widely regarded as the most extensive firearms regulatory framework in the nation, has been at the center of this litigation for nearly four years. As of April 2026, the landscape has shifted substantially, with several major decisions now on the record.

Duncan v. Bonta -- Large-Capacity Magazine Ban: DECIDED

On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Duncan v. Bonta, upholding California's large-capacity magazine ban in a 7-4 decision. ^[2] Judge Graber wrote for the majority, holding that large-capacity magazines are "optional accessories to firearms" and are not "arms" within the meaning of the Second Amendment. The majority also found the ban consistent with historical traditions of regulating dangerous materials, citing founding-era gunpowder storage regulations.

Judges Bumatay, Ikuta, R. Nelson, and VanDyke dissented. On August 15, 2025, plaintiffs filed a cert petition (Docket No. 25-198). As of March 2026, SCOTUS has relisted the case nine times without granting or denying review. ^[3] The ban remains fully enforceable. Freedom Week magazines remain legal to possess.

Miller v. Bonta -- Assault Weapons Ban: AWAITING PANEL DECISION

After Judge Benitez struck down the ban on remand in October 2023, the state appealed and oral arguments were held before a Ninth Circuit panel on January 24, 2024. ^[4] The panel deferred decision pending Duncan. After the Duncan en banc decision, the Miller panel ordered supplemental briefing (March 27, 2025) on the impact of Duncan. Briefs were filed in April 2025, and the case was resubmitted for decision. No ruling has been issued as of March 2026.

The Duncan holding could influence Miller, but the assault weapons ban raises distinct questions: unlike magazines, the regulated items are complete firearms, and Judge Benitez found them "commonly owned for lawful purposes."

Rupp v. Bonta -- Assault Weapons Ban (Parallel Challenge): PENDED

Rupp v. Bonta, a parallel challenge to the assault weapons ban filed in the Central District, has been effectively pended to the en banc panel's resolution of Duncan and Miller. The eleven-judge en banc panel appears poised to address all three cases as part of a coordinated review of California's firearms regulatory framework. No independent proceedings have advanced in Rupp since the Duncan en banc decision.

May v. Bonta / SB 2 Sensitive Places: PARTIALLY REVERSED

On January 23, 2025, the Ninth Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction in May v. Bonta in multiple respects, making Penal Code Section 26230(a) enforceable as to several additional location categories. ^[5] The newly enforceable sensitive places include bars and restaurants serving alcohol, playgrounds and youth centers, parks and athletic areas and athletic facilities, and most real property under the Department of Parks and Recreation.

As of March 2026, approximately 20 of the 26 sensitive places are enforceable. The remaining enjoined provisions include the default private property prohibition, places of worship, financial institutions, and public transit. CCW holders must be aware that carrying in a now-enforceable sensitive place is a criminal offense even with a valid permit.

Rhode v. Bonta -- Ammunition Background Checks: EN BANC REHEARING

On July 24, 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel struck down California's ammunition background check system. ^[6] En banc rehearing was granted in December 2025, with oral arguments scheduled for the week of March 23, 2026. The U.S. DOJ and 25 states filed amicus briefs supporting the challenge. ^[7] The system remains in effect during the en banc proceedings.

Baird v. Bonta -- Open Carry Ban: EN BANC PETITION PENDING

On January 2, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel struck down California's ban on open carry in counties with populations exceeding 200,000, holding that the prohibition violates the Second Amendment under Bruen. ^[8] Judge VanDyke authored the majority opinion, joined by Judge Lee; Judge Smith dissented. The majority found that "the historical record makes unmistakably plain" that open carry is "part of this Nation's history and tradition." AG Bonta filed a petition for rehearing en banc on January 16, 2026. ^[9] The mandate is tolled under FRAP 35(c) while the en banc petition is pending. CA DOJ Information Bulletin 2026-DLE-04 instructs law enforcement to continue enforcing existing open carry prohibitions. ^[10]

Boland v. Bonta -- Handgun Roster and Microstamping: PENDED

Boland v. Bonta has been vacated and pended to the en banc resolution of Duncan. The preliminary injunction against the microstamping requirement, chamber load indicator, and magazine disconnect mechanism remains in effect, allowing new handgun models to be added to the roster. Meanwhile, the DOJ published a Microstamping Technological Viability Report in July 2025 finding the technology viable, potentially triggering a standalone January 1, 2028 microstamping requirement under SB 452 if commercial availability is confirmed.

The Rahimi Clarification

The Supreme Court's June 2024 decision in United States v. Rahimi ^[11] clarified the Bruen framework. Chief Justice Roberts wrote that courts should look for regulations that are "relevantly similar" rather than demanding a "historical twin." This more flexible reading benefits California's position and has influenced the Ninth Circuit's reasoning in Duncan.

Vulnerability Assessment (Updated March 2026)

Based on actual outcomes and current posture:

Upheld by the Ninth Circuit:
- Large-capacity magazine ban (Duncan, 7-4 en banc; cert petition pending at SCOTUS)

Panel Struck Down (en banc review pending or sought):
- Open carry ban in large counties (Baird, 2-1 panel; en banc petition pending)
- Ammunition background checks (Rhode, panel struck down; en banc oral arguments imminent)

Most Vulnerable:
- Microstamping requirement (no historical analog; Boland injunction remains in effect)
- SB 2 sensitive places -- broad categories (places of worship, private property default still enjoined)

Outcome Uncertain:
- Assault weapons ban (Miller resubmitted; Duncan may influence but raises distinct "arms" questions)

Likely to Survive:
- SB 2 sensitive places -- narrow categories (government buildings, schools, courthouses; clear historical support)
- Handgun roster safety testing (drop-safety and firing tests have historical proof-house analogs)

What This Means for California Gun Owners

Gun owners should continue to comply with all existing laws, including the open carry ban. The most immediate practical changes are the expansion of enforceable SB 2 sensitive places and the pending resolution of the Baird open carry case. The Rhode en banc oral arguments (week of March 23, 2026), the Baird en banc petition, the pending Miller panel decision, and SCOTUS's handling of the Duncan cert petition are the critical developments to monitor.

See also: Baird v. Bonta: Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California's Urban Open Carry Ban