On June 24, 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals lit up with legal fireworks during oral arguments in Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Bonta. At the center of the case is Assembly Bill 2571 (AB 2571), a controversial California law aimed at restricting firearm-related marketing that appears to appeal to minors. The law has been under fire for allegedly violating the First Amendment, and this week, the state’s legal defense faced serious heat from federal judges.
As the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) reported in a same-day news release, the panel “held the state’s feet to the fire,” especially over its shifting arguments and failure to raise severability issues earlier in the process. That phrase alone signals how poorly things went for California’s legal team. “We are hopeful for a solid ruling,” said CRPA President Chuck Michel, expressing cautious optimism.
The Lawsuit That Shook California’s Gun Community
This lawsuit isn’t just about one magazine – it’s about the future of how firearms can be discussed, advertised, or even mentioned to minors in California. AB 2571 was passed on an emergency basis, and according to attorney Anna Barvir, it was a direct response to “untoward” firearm marketing that lawmakers believed targeted children.
In an interview on CRPA TV hosted by Kevin Small, Barvir explained that the law bans any firearm industry member, including advocacy groups like CRPA, from advertising or marketing anything gun-related if it appears attractive to anyone under 18. It even bars maintaining mailing lists of minors for such communications. This broad language sent shockwaves through youth shooting sports in California.
Youth Programs Shut Down in the Wake of AB 2571
According to Barvir, once the law passed, its chilling effect was immediate. Ranges didn’t know if they could display brand flags. Junior shooting competitions lost sponsors. Even summer camps were shut down. One clause in the law threatened fines up to $25,000 per minor exposed to marketing deemed “attractive.”
The uncertainty was so severe that several youth programs simply stopped operating. Kevin Small described the situation as a “complete standstill.” What began as a free speech lawsuit quickly became a battle to save educational and recreational programs for young gun enthusiasts across the state.
CRPA Secures Early Legal Victory – Sort Of
Shortly after filing the lawsuit, CRPA won a partial victory at the Ninth Circuit. As Barvir explained, the court found that the plaintiffs, CRPA and Junior Sports Magazines, were likely to win on First Amendment grounds. The court ruled that Section 22949.80 of California law, even as modified by AB 160, was “likely unconstitutional.”
This ruling sent the case back down to the district court. But instead of granting a full injunction as expected, Judge Christina Snyder only blocked Subsection A of the law, which directly relates to firearm marketing content. Subsection B, which restricts how minor data can be used for marketing, was left intact, leading to the current appeal.
Subsection B Becomes the New Battleground
This is where things get strange. In the related Safari Club International (SCI) case, the state didn’t object to a full injunction. But when it came to CRPA’s lawsuit, state lawyers suddenly argued that Subsection B was separate and not covered by the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling.
According to Barvir, the state had never made that argument, not once, in their earlier filings or appeals. Now they were claiming the law should be severed, leaving B intact. Judges were not impressed. One even asked bluntly, “Did you ever argue severability before?” When the state’s attorney hesitated, the courtroom tension skyrocketed.
Ninth Circuit Judges Don’t Hold Back
One of the standout moments came when Judge Randy Smith blasted the state for trying to split the law after the fact. “Name me one case where you didn’t argue severability, and then got to come back and argue it later,” he said, visibly frustrated. “I looked for it. Give me one case.”
This was a rare moment in the Ninth Circuit, known for being a tough arena for gun rights cases, where the court appeared deeply sympathetic to the plaintiffs. As Kevin Small observed, “It wasn’t even about the merits anymore. It was about process, about honesty, and about not wasting the court’s time.”
Why Subsections A and B Are Legally Tied Together
According to Barvir, the state’s attempt to split A and B makes no legal sense. She explained that Subsection B only prohibits the use of minor data for the purpose of advertising – the very behavior that Subsection A already regulates. “They are not different conduct,” she emphasized. “They are tied together by design.”
She also noted that because the court already found A likely unconstitutional, leaving B intact effectively bans the same speech through the back door. Junior Sports Magazines still can’t use its subscriber list to send issues to young readers in California. The law’s chilling effect is ongoing, even after a court win.
A Judge’s Memory and Frustration Are Long
Barvir remarked that the panel, especially Judge Smith, clearly remembered how the state handled the first round. And they weren’t happy to be back for what felt like déjà vu. She said the oral arguments were “a joy to watch” – a rare sentiment for attorneys dealing with the Ninth Circuit.
Her confidence was clear: “I anticipate a win here.” She doesn’t expect the state to ask for a full en banc hearing, nor does she think this case is likely to reach the Supreme Court. “This is about severability and waiver, not about the constitutional question anymore,” she said.
This Is About More Than a Magazine
Let’s take a step back here. What’s shocking isn’t just the law itself – it’s the state’s strategy. First, they passed AB 2571 on an emergency basis. Then, when they lost at the appellate level, they tried to pretend parts of the law weren’t included in that ruling. If any private citizen pulled this kind of stunt in court, they’d get shut down in seconds.
This isn’t how justice is supposed to work. Laws can’t be rewritten mid-case. Judges don’t like being misled. And constitutional rights, especially speech rights, shouldn’t be this hard to defend. California’s tactic here looks like a game of legal hide-and-seek.
What Happens Next in the Case
According to Barvir, the panel is likely to issue a new ruling soon. She expects clearer instructions to the district court to fully enjoin both subsections of the law. If that happens, CRPA will finally be able to resume its normal outreach, and youth magazines and programs can operate without fear.
“This should’ve been over a year ago,” said Small. But the state’s delays have kept youth programs frozen and publishers silenced. The outcome of this next ruling could finally put an end to that – and put the First Amendment back where it belongs.
A Fight Worth Watching for Gun Owners Everywhere
Even though this case is focused on California, the implications are nationwide. If the state can restrict lawful, educational speech aimed at minors just because it’s about guns, what else could be banned tomorrow? This is a First and Second Amendment case rolled into one, and the ruling could shape the future of firearm education for the next generation.
The good news? The Ninth Circuit seems ready to call the state out. As CRPA said in their official update, “We’re holding their feet to the fire.” With the court paying attention and the facts on the plaintiffs’ side, California’s legal juggling act may finally be collapsing.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.