This is a win for the principle of free speech. The State of California, after losing a case twice at the notorious Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, has conceded that its firearms advertising ban violates the First Amendment and has agreed to pay more than $1.3 million in legal fees to the plaintiffs.
LEGAL ALERT: After losing twice at the Ninth Circuit, California has agreed that its minor firearms advertising ban violates the First Amendment, and will pay the plaintiffs $1,381,749.72 for attorneys’ fees. https://t.co/swo4v34wKWhttps://t.co/VEClSsljSu pic.twitter.com/GbbvwSTlmw
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) March 17, 2026
The plaintiffs include the Safari Club International, the United States Sportsman's Alliance Foundation, and the Congressional Sportsman's Foundation. The decisions can be viewed here and here.
This case began with a California statute, Assembly Bill 2571 (AB 2571), that prohibited "firearms industry members" — a term that is hopelessly vague — from advertising, marketing or promoting any firearms or firearms-related products, in a manner that is "designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors" — again, a hopelessly vague term.
Safari Club International and the other plaintiff did not approach this as a Second Amendment issue. Instead, they filed suit arguing that the statute violated the First Amendment, in restricting commercial speech, as well as the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, charging that the law was vague, and that it was discriminatory against a legal industry and their legal products.
Read More: Supreme Court Deals California a Setback in Ruling on Gender Identity Notification Law
9th Circuit Judge Comes Out Swinging (Ahem)...in Spicy Dissent Over Women-Only Nude Spa
The Second Amendment Foundation's Kostas Moros added some comments:
Gavin Newsom passed a law to attack the First Amendment because he was mad about a .22lr rifle that was meant for junior shooters.
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) March 17, 2026
That little stunt has cost California taxpayers over a million dollars, not including whatever CADOJ spent on their own lawyers.
$350k to SAF,… pic.twitter.com/aPTRmdw6G2
The post continues:
$350k to SAF, $550k to the CRPA coalition of plaintiffs in the same lawsuit, and another $480k in the parallel Safari Club International case on the same issues.
Will Newsom apologize to taxpayers for this waste?
We appreciate your contribution, idiot.
He added this zinger:
And remember, California could have stopped after their first Ninth Circuit loss. Instead, they made a harebrained push to limit the injunction to only one part of the law, extending the case for many more months and adding to the legal bills.
— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) March 17, 2026
Sucks to suck.
Indeed.
This case should be a lesson to leftist politicians everywhere. The First Amendment, that founding principle of free speech, doesn't just apply to speech they approve of. That includes advertising for legal products that they don't approve of — and if you ask me if I think that also applies to bans on advertising of tobacco, yes, I think it does, or at least, it should.
Yes, a certain amount of firearms advertising is aimed at minors. Everyone knows that firearms can only be purchased by adults and that adults should carefully oversee minors using firearms. But many minors love to hunt, to engage in the shooting sports, and the manufacturers make firearms that, yes, are aimed at the youth market. It's all legal. And there's no reason for the California Assembly or the impeccably coiffed Gavin Newsom to try to restrict their right to advertise their legal products.
I hope you learned something from all this, Governor Newsom, although I suspect you have not.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt and incompetent politicians like Gavin Newsom.
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member