Rupp v. Bonta: Second Assault Weapons Ban Challenge

Rupp v. Bonta (originally Rupp v. Becerra) is a parallel challenge to California's assault weapons ban, filed in the Central District of California before Judge Josephine Staton. While Miller v. Bonta in the Southern District has received more attention, Rupp presents a separate set of plaintiffs and a distinct procedural path ^[1].

Background

The case was filed in 2017 by individual plaintiffs and the California Rifle and Pistol Association. Like Miller, Rupp challenges the constitutionality of California's assault weapons ban, including the definitions in Penal Code sections 30510 and 30515 ^[2]. The plaintiffs argue that the banned firearms are commonly owned for lawful purposes and that the ban violates the Second Amendment.

District Court Ruling

In 2019, Judge Staton granted summary judgment in favor of the state, upholding the assault weapons ban. Applying the two-step means-end scrutiny framework then used by the Ninth Circuit, the court found that the ban survived intermediate scrutiny. This contrasted with Judge Benitez's approach in Miller, where he struck down the ban.

Ninth Circuit Proceedings

Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. After briefing and argument, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's judgment and remanded on June 28, 2022, for further proceedings consistent with Bruen.

Post-Bruen Remand

On remand, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court for reconsideration under Bruen. The proceedings were ongoing when the Duncan v. Bonta en banc proceedings overtook the litigation timeline.

Current Status (2025-2026)

The Ninth Circuit issued its en banc decision in Duncan v. Bonta on March 20, 2025. Rupp's appellate proceedings had been stayed on June 7, 2024, pending resolution of Duncan or further order of the court. Status reports were filed in Rupp after the Duncan decision, including one on September 22, 2026. The case's resolution is expected to follow the outcome of Miller v. Bonta, which is the lead assault weapons ban challenge at the Ninth Circuit level. The Miller panel ordered supplemental briefing in March 2025 on the impact of the Duncan ruling and resubmitted the case for decision in April 2025. On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County and consolidated the cases to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. On July 1, 2026, the Ninth Circuit vacated submission of Miller pending the Supreme Court's resolution of those cases. Rupp saw no new disposition in this period, and its resolution is now expected to follow the Supreme Court's ruling.

The assault weapons ban remains fully enforceable. All existing requirements regarding assault weapon classification, registration, and prohibited features continue to apply while both Miller and Rupp are pending.

Relationship to Miller v. Bonta

The two cases are companion challenges attacking the same statute through different courts. If the Ninth Circuit ultimately hears both cases, it may consolidate them or issue a single ruling addressing the constitutionality of California's assault weapons ban under Bruen. Having two independent district court decisions provides a broader factual record for appellate review.