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

The Supreme Court's June 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen ^[1] held that New York's proper-cause requirement violated the right to carry handguns in public for self-defense. 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). The Supreme Court docket captured on October 15, 2026 lists the petition without a grant or denial of review. ^[3] California generally prohibits buying, manufacturing, importing, keeping for sale, exposing for sale, giving, or lending large-capacity magazines. The ban on possessing magazines acquired when acquiring them was lawful, which includes Freedom Week magazines, has never taken effect. The Ninth Circuit partially stayed its mandate on that point pending Supreme Court review, and the plaintiffs filed their petition on August 15, 2025.

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 24, 2025) on the impact of Duncan. Briefs were filed in April 2025, and the case was resubmitted for decision. On July 1, 2026, the panel vacated submission pending the Supreme Court’s resolution of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.

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 described the protected firearms as "commonly owned and kept 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, was stayed under the Ninth Circuit's June 7, 2024 order pending resolution of Duncan or further order of the court. Rupp has its own appellate docket, No. 24-2583. Status reports were filed after the Duncan en banc decision, most recently on September 22, 2026.

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

The Ninth Circuit's September 6, 2024 decision in May v. Bonta partially reversed the preliminary injunction. The court denied rehearing on January 15, 2025. The partial reversal allowed California to enforce Penal Code Section 26230(a) at additional locations. ^[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 on December 1, 2025, vacating the panel opinion. The en banc court heard argument on March 25, 2026, and no decision appears in the October 15, 2026 docket capture. 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 Under En Banc Review

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, who also concurred separately. Judge N.R. Smith concurred in part and dissented in part. 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 court granted rehearing en banc on April 15, 2026 and vacated the panel opinion. The en banc court heard argument on June 3, 2026, and no decision appears in the October 15, 2026 docket capture. 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 Appeal

The Ninth Circuit vacated submission of Boland v. Bonta pending the en banc decision in Duncan on March 25, 2024, and ordered supplemental briefing after Duncan on March 27, 2025. The March 31, 2023 appellate stay preserved the chamber load indicator and magazine disconnect requirements. The original preliminary injunction also covered microstamping, which SB 452 later removed from the roster requirements. 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 Opinions Vacated for En Banc Review
- Open carry ban in large counties (Baird panel opinion vacated, en banc decision pending)
- Ammunition background checks (Rhode panel opinion vacated, en banc decision pending)

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 submission vacated pending Supreme Court review of Grant and Viramontes)

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 pending Rhode and Baird en banc decisions, the pending Miller panel decision, and SCOTUS's handling of the Duncan cert petition are developments to monitor.

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