Case Numbers: S.D. Cal. case no. 3:19-cv-01537, 9th Circuit case nos. 21-55608 and 23-2979
Issue: Challenges California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA), specifically the ban on firearms classified as “assault weapons” under California Penal Code section 30515. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Second Amendment by restricting commonly used firearms for self-defense, citing New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) and its requirement that firearm regulations align with historical traditions.
Current Status: Pending in the 9th Circuit, held in abeyance pending the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (a related case challenging California’s large-capacity magazine ban). Oral arguments were held on January 24, 2024, before a three-judge panel, but the court announced it would defer a decision until after Duncan v. Bonta is resolved by the en banc 9th Circuit. As of April 18, 2025, no final ruling has been issued, and the case remains active.
Procedural History:
District Court (2021): On June 4, 2021, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez (Southern District of California) struck down the AWCA, ruling it unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. He likened AR-15 rifles to a “Swiss Army knife” for self-defense and militia purposes, citing District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and United States v. Miller (1939). The ruling was stayed for 30 days pending appeal.
9th Circuit (2021): On June 21, 2021, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit granted California’s motion to stay Benitez’s ruling, keeping the AWCA in effect during the appeal.
Post-Bruen Remand (2022): After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in June 2022, the 9th Circuit vacated Benitez’s 2021 ruling and remanded the case to the district court for reconsideration under Bruen’s text-and-history test, which rejected means-end scrutiny.
District Court (2023): On October 19, 2023, Judge Benitez again ruled the AWCA unconstitutional, issuing a permanent injunction against its enforcement. He reaffirmed his prior findings, arguing that the banned firearms are protected under Bruen and that California failed to show a historical tradition of similar bans. A 10-day stay was granted pending appeal.
9th Circuit Appeal (2023–Present): California Attorney General Rob Bonta appealed on October 19, 2023, and secured an administrative stay from the 9th Circuit on October 28, 2023, keeping the AWCA in effect. Oral arguments occurred on January 24, 2024, but the panel noted overlap with Duncan v. Bonta and decided to hold the case in abeyance.
Key Arguments:
Plaintiffs: The AWCA bans firearms (e.g., AR-15s) that are commonly used for lawful purposes like self-defense, violating the Second Amendment. They argue that Bruen requires California to prove a historical tradition of banning similar weapons, which it cannot do. The plaintiffs, including James Miller, gun owners, and organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition, also contend that the ban’s feature-based definitions (e.g., pistol grips, folding stocks) are arbitrary.
Defendants: California argues that the AWCA is constitutional because assault weapons are “dangerous and unusual” and not protected by the Second Amendment. The state claims the ban addresses public safety concerns, particularly mass shootings, and aligns with historical regulations limiting dangerous weapons.
Details:
The 9th Circuit’s decision to hold Miller v. Bonta in abeyance reflects the overlap with Duncan v. Bonta, particularly on whether modern firearms or accessories fall under the Second Amendment’s scope and whether California’s bans meet Bruen’s historical test. During oral arguments, Judges Jacqueline H. Nguyen and Eric D. Miller questioned the analytical framework and similarities between the cases.
The case has drawn significant attention, with amicus briefs from states (e.g., Idaho, Iowa, Montana) supporting the plaintiffs and groups like Everytown for Gun Safety supporting California.
The AWCA remains in effect due to the 9th Circuit’s stay, meaning California’s assault weapon restrictions continue to be enforced pending the appeal’s outcome.
Potential Outcomes: If the 9th Circuit rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the AWCA could be struck down, potentially allowing ownership of previously banned firearms. If the court upholds the ban, the plaintiffs are likely to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given Bruen’s impact and the circuit’s history of splits on Second Amendment issues. But, in light of the 9th Circuit’s recent decision in the Duncan v. Bonta matter, holding that large capacity magazines can be restricted, it is likely that “assault weapon” bans need to be addressed at the Supreme Court before the 9th will recognize the Second Amendment as a serious right – if at all.
