wo and half years since federal appeals court judges first called the law an unconstitutional “muzzling of speech” rights, California’s state government has agreed to pay $1.4 million to a group of Second Amendment rights advocacy groups under a deal to abandon the state’s defense of the law, enacted by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Democratic lawmakers to severely restrict the ability of gun makers to advertise their products.
On March 17 in Los Angeles federal court, U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder signed off on the deal, entering a final judgment ending the four-year-old court fight over the law known as Assembly Bill 2571.
On the same day, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a stipulation in Sacramento federal court asking U.S. District Judge Dale Drozd to end a related action challenging the same law in that court.
The deal was hailed as a resounding victory by gun owners’ rights groups in California and elsewhere in the country, including the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), which was among the group challenging the law in court.
“This full and complete victory is a result of the tenacity of the CRPA and our attorneys, who pushed this case not once but twice through the Ninth Circuit,” stated CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel. “The state recklessly shoved aside both the First and Second Amendments, but AB 2571 has been rightfully struck down.”
The case has been in court since 2022 shortly after AB 2571 was signed into law by Newsom.
AB 2571 was first challenged by Junior Sports Magazines Inc., which publishes Junior Shooters magazine, which focuses on firearms-related activities and products. They were joined in the action by CRPA and a collection of other Second Amendment rights advocates.
That lawsuit was followed by a separate action brought by the Safari Club International and the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, among others.
Newsom and other California Democrats intended the law to make it illegal for firearms manufacturers and sellers to advertise guns in such a way that the state determines is intended to make the firearms “attractive to minors.”
The law would allow the state to hit companies it believes has violated the rule with fines of up to $25,000 per violation.
The challengers said the law not only sought to use the power of the state to interfere with Second Amendment rights, but also to chill First Amendment publishing and speech rights by exposing publishers to potentially financially ruinous legal action from the state.
Further, the lawsuits asserted the law would infringe the ability of firearm safety advocates and gun owners groups to promote and protect youth hunting and shooting sports in California.
After U.S. District Judge Christina A. Snyder — an appointee of former President Bill Clinton — refused to block the law from taking effect, the challengers took the case to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
There, a three-judge panel blasted the lower court’s decision in the matter, saying the judge improperly relied on California’s “evidence free narrative” that the law would somehow reduce gun violence among young people.
“The First Amendment demands more than good intentions and wishful thinking to warrant the government’s muzzling of speech,” Ninth Circuit Judge Kenneth Lee wrote for the unanimous panel.
Despite a resounding loss on appeal, California Attorney General Rob Bonta continued to attempt to defend at least a portion of the law. And again, Judge Snyder obliged, asserting the Ninth Circuit’s constitutional findings applied to only portions of the law.
The gun rights groups appealed again, and the same Ninth Circuit panel told the judge, again, that the constitutional analysis fully applied to the statute.
In October 2025, Judge Snyder finally issued the preliminary injunction, blocking the state from enforcing the law.
According the court docket, the parties then entered settlement talks, leading to the deal entered by Judge Snyder on March 17.
Under the deal with all parties, the state agreed to abandon its attempts to enforce AB 2571.
And the state further agreed to pay a combined $1.4 million to the challengers to cover their legal bills in fighting the law for four years.
The challengers said the state could have avoided the significant payout by recognizing the loss when it became obvious years ago.
The state “now acknowledges what was obvious all along—it infringed on sportsmen’s First Amendment rights, and its paying a heavy price for doing so,” the Sportmen’s Alliance Foundation said in a statement announcing the settlement.
“The First Amendment provides different levels of protection to all forms of speech,” said Michael Jean, litigation counsel for Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation. “When it comes to commercial advertising, it protects truthful, non-misleading advertising, unless those advertisements further some other illegal activity.”
