The ongoing battle over Second Amendment rights in California took a dramatic turn as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines—a decision that has stirred outrage among gun rights advocates nationwide.

In a 7–4 ruling, the court sided with California, declaring that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are not protected under the Second Amendment, or that even if they are, the state’s restriction aligns with the nation’s “historical tradition” of regulating dangerous weapons.

What made this ruling particularly controversial wasn’t just the outcome—it was the response from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the dissenting judges.

Rather than relying solely on a written opinion, VanDyke released an unprecedented video dissent on YouTube, where he personally handled firearms to demonstrate how magazines and firing mechanisms function. His goal, according to his statement, was to provide a “visual explanation” that written words alone could not convey.

The move, however, was met with immediate backlash from other members of the court.

Judge Marsha Berzon, concurring with the majority, sharply criticized VanDyke’s approach, accusing him of acting as an “expert witness” and introducing materials outside the case record—a serious departure from judicial norms.

Berzon labeled the video as “wildly improper,” arguing that it blurred the lines between judicial reasoning and public advocacy. Legal scholars have since debated whether VanDyke’s video dissent could impact judicial ethics and the integrity of appellate proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision may not be the end of this story. With ongoing litigation surrounding gun control and the Second Amendment, it’s possible the issue could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the Bruen precedent’s emphasis on historical analysis.

If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it could once again redefine how lower courts interpret the constitutional right to bear arms—and whether states like California can continue to enforce sweeping magazine restrictions.

This case highlights the deep divide within the judiciary over how to balance public safety and constitutional freedoms.
Judge VanDyke’s video dissent, while unconventional, underscores growing frustration among some jurists who believe the courts are undermining the Second Amendment through what they see as political rulings rather than legal reasoning.

Whether or not the Supreme Court intervenes, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling—and VanDyke’s fiery video response—will likely shape the national conversation on gun rights for years to come.

In a recent Copper Jacket TV update, host Will breaks down three major new gun control bills passed in California — SB74, AB1078, and AB1127 — warning that they could dramatically impact law-abiding gun owners while doing little to deter criminals. SB74 introduces background checks and registration for barrels; AB1078 reinstates a three-per-month firearm purchase limit, despite prior court rulings deeming such restrictions unconstitutional; and AB1127, dubbed the “Glock ban,” eliminates an entire brand and category of handguns from the state’s approved roster.

Will explains that although these bills passed in September, Governor Gavin Newsom has 30 days from the time each reaches his desk to sign or veto them. If he takes no action, they automatically become law after 12 days. Given Newsom’s political ambitions, Will predicts he will sign all three — possibly in a high-profile event — before the first deadline of October 17.

Gun rights advocates are already preparing legal challenges, arguing that these laws unfairly target responsible citizens and undermine the Second Amendment. Will closes by urging viewers to stay informed, subscribe for updates, and continue supporting the fight for constitutional rights in California

Breaking 2A News: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear part of a major gun rights case—Wolford v. Lopez—originating from Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the Court only granted certiorari (SER) on one of two questions, that question tackles a critical issue: Can a state presumptively ban concealed carry on private property open to the public unless the property owner gives explicit permission? This controversial policy, known as the “vampire rule,” effectively disarms permit holders unless businesses post signs allowing carry.

The case challenges Hawaii’s restrictive carry law, which mirrors similar laws in New York and California. If overturned, it could have nationwide implications for how states regulate so-called “sensitive locations” and private property carry rights post-Bruen.

This move comes as the Supreme Court faces growing pressure to address several other high-profile Second Amendment cases. While Wolford v. Lopez is a step forward, many in the 2A community hope it won’t be the only case SCOTUS addresses in 2025.

California’s latest push for stricter firearm restrictions is facing new hurdles. AB1127, widely known as the “Glock ban,” and AB1078, which would restrict residents to three firearm purchases per month, recently advanced from the Assembly to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Both bills were placed in the suspense file, meaning their financial impact will be reviewed before any further votes. While this doesn’t kill the bills outright, it puts them in legislative limbo. With California already facing major budget issues, the potential for costly lawsuits—which could stretch on for years—may weigh heavily on whether lawmakers allow these bills to move forward.

Another measure, SB74, which adds background checks for barrels, is also progressing and may face similar fiscal scrutiny.

Over the next two weeks, the fate of these bills will be decided. If they pass out of suspense, they’ll head to the Senate floor and potentially the governor’s desk. If not, they may stall indefinitely.

For gun owners, Second Amendment supporters, and California residents alike, the outcome of AB1127, AB1078, and SB74 could reshape the state’s gun laws and influence other states to follow suit.

DOJ Confirms ATF Pistol Brace Rule Vacated After Fifth Circuit Appeal Dropped

A Major Win in the Pistol Brace Lawsuits

In a major development for gun owners, the DOJ has confirmed that the ATF’s pistol brace rule is vacated nationwide. This follows the Department of Justice’s decision to drop its Fifth Circuit appeal in the Mock v. Garland case, allowing Judge O’Connor’s earlier ruling striking down the rule to remain in effect.

What Judge O’Connor’s Ruling Means

Judge O’Connor found that the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing a final rule that was not a logical outgrowth of its proposed rule. Because of this procedural failure, the brace rule was declared unlawful and set aside.

California’s SB452: New Law Could Ban Sale of Semi-Automatic Handguns by 2028

The state of California has taken a major step that could effectively ban the sale of all new semi-automatic handguns by the year 2028. The new legislation, known as SB452, introduces sweeping changes to the Unsafe Handgun Act, creating concern across the firearm community and among Second Amendment supporters.

What Is SB452?

SB452 is a California law signed in 2023 that requires all semi-automatic handguns sold in California to feature microstamping technology beginning January 1, 2028. Unlike earlier versions of the roster law, which allowed legacy handguns to remain on the market, SB452 applies to all new and existing models sold by licensed dealers in the state.

Why This Matters to California Gun Owners

This law may not ban semi-auto handguns directly, but by requiring technology that no gun manufacturer currently uses or produces at scale, it creates a de facto semi-automatic handgun ban in California. Microstamping—designed to imprint unique identifiers on spent shell casings—is not in widespread use and is considered unworkable by many in the industry.

DOJ Report Declares Microstamping "Viable"

For SB452 to move forward, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) was required to assess whether microstamping is a viable technology. In a report recently released by Attorney General Rob Bonta, the DOJ claimed that microstamping is indeed viable, thus activating the law’s 2028 deadline.

Excerpt from DOJ Press Release:

“Beginning January 1, 2028, the Unsafe Handgun Act will mandate that all semi-automatic handguns sold by licensed dealers must be verified as Microstamp-enabled.” — Office of the California Attorney General

What Happens After January 1, 2028?

• Dealers will be prohibited from selling new semi-automatic handguns that do not meet the microstamping requirement.
• Nothing currently on the California handgun roster includes this technology.
• Manufacturers are unlikely to develop these features due to cost, complexity, and lack of demand elsewhere.
• Private ownership of existing handguns is not affected—this only impacts new sales.

How Gun Owners Can Prepare

If you're a California resident or a dealer in the state, it's critical to stay updated on these developments. This law may limit your access to modern self-defense handguns and could have serious implications for Second Amendment rights in California.

Spread the word to fellow gun owners and consider joining advocacy efforts that aim to challenge laws like SB452. Legal challenges may emerge based on the unavailability of compliant firearms and the impact on consumer rights.

Key SEO Keywords to Note:

• California handgun law 2028
• SB452 microstamping requirements
• semi-automatic handgun ban California
• microstamping technology firearms
• California Department of Justice gun laws

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney regarding your specific legal rights and obligations under current California firearm laws.

In a major legal victory for both the First and Second Amendments, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has delivered a decisive blow to California's attempt to suppress youth firearms education and communication. In a case that directly affects the future of shooting sports and responsible gun ownership, the court has ruled that California’s censorship law—Section 22949.80 of the Business and Professions Code—is entirely unconstitutional.

The Law: A Backdoor Ban on Gun Culture

The origins of this case trace back to Assembly Bill 2571, which was later modified by AB 160. These bills combined to create a law that banned marketing or communication deemed “attractive to minors” if it involved firearms. This included:

• Gun safety education
• Youth hunting programs
• Junior shooting competitions
• Newsletter subscriptions or magazine mailings
• Any use of a minor’s contact information for firearms-related outreach

California's justification? Protecting minors. But in practice, this law targeted the very culture of responsible gun ownership passed down through generations.

The Legal Challenge

Organizations including Junior Sports Magazines, Inc., the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), the Second Amendment Foundation, and Gun Owners of California filed suit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, arguing the law violated the First Amendment’s protection of lawful, non-misleading commercial speech.

Over a year ago, the Ninth Circuit agreed in part, blocking subsection A of the law. However, subsection B—which prohibited using a minor’s contact information in firearms-related communications—remained in effect.

That changed July 7, 2025, when the Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court and ruled that the entire law must be blocked.

Why the Court Ruled This Way

The court’s opinion leaned heavily on major First Amendment precedents:

• Central Hudson: The gold standard for evaluating regulations on commercial speech. The court found the law failed to pass this test.
• Sorrell v. IMS Health: Reinforced that states cannot restrict speech just because they disagree with the message.
• Moody v. NetChoice (2024): Reiterated that viewpoint-based speech restrictions disguised as neutral regulations are unconstitutional.

The court noted that California failed to prove that the law directly and materially advanced a legitimate goal. Since minors can already legally participate in hunting and shooting sports, the sweeping ban on advertising and communication was seen as overbroad and politically motivated.

The Real Target: Gun Culture

Let’s be clear: this wasn’t about safety or privacy—it was about eroding the culture of firearms ownership by cutting off youth involvement. Unable to ban hunting or basic firearms training, California attempted to silence speech and information that connects the next generation to the shooting sports.

Fortunately, the Ninth Circuit recognized the tactic and ruled accordingly:

“You cannot weaponize privacy laws to shut down speech you don’t like.”

What This Ruling Means

• Youth shooting programs can now operate and advertise freely in California.
• Publications like Junior Shooters can resume full circulation without fear of legal repercussions.
• Second Amendment organizations can once again communicate with young audiences without facing $25,000 fines per violation.
• Most importantly, the ruling sends a strong message: states cannot use indirect methods to dismantle constitutionally protected rights.

A Win for the Next Generation

This case might have been fought in the name of the First Amendment, but its impact is felt deeply in the Second Amendment community. The Ninth Circuit’s decision reaffirms that freedom of speech protects the future of gun rights, and that censorship disguised as “safety” won’t stand under constitutional scrutiny.

Attorney General Rob Bonta and others pushing these types of laws have suffered a clear loss. And while the fight isn’t over, this is a major milestone proving that when we push back through the courts, we can and do win.

Stay engaged, stay informed, and never stop defending our rights. The Constitution still matters—and today, freedom won.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down California's One-Gun-Per-Month Law in Major 2A Victory

In a significant win for Second Amendment advocates, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s controversial “one gun a month” law in the case of Nguyen v. Bonta. This law had prohibited individuals from purchasing more than one firearm within a 30-day period, a restriction that the court ruled as unconstitutional.

The case originally began at the district court level, where a judge found the law violated the Second Amendment and issued an injunction against its enforcement. Although California initially succeeded in placing an emergency stay on the injunction, a subsequent three-judge panel reversed that decision, allowing the injunction to stand while the case continued.

In a surprising turn—especially from a court often perceived as leaning against gun rights—the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling, stating that the law “facially violates the Second Amendment.” The court emphasized that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess multiple firearms and prohibits “meaningful constraints on the acquisition” of arms.

Notably, the ruling directly undermines a new California bill currently working its way through the legislature, which would limit firearm purchases to three per month. The language used by the Ninth Circuit—including the observation that there is “not even a historical cousin” to California’s restriction—suggests this new bill may also be doomed.

This decision marks a rare but powerful moment where the courts recognized and upheld the full scope of Second Amendment protections, rejecting the notion that the state can impose arbitrary limits on lawful gun purchases.

While California may attempt further appeals, possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court, the tone and content of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion suggest this could be the end of the road for this type of restrictive legislation. For now, Californians are no longer limited to one gun purchase every 30 days—a major legal and symbolic victory for gun rights supporters.

Big things are happening right now for gun rights advocates: a big legal win in CA and an important development in the effort to repeal parts of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

First, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals just struck down California’s “one gun a month” law. In a unanimous 3-0 decision, the court said the law was unconstitutional. The judges ruled that the Second Amendment protects the right to own and buy multiple firearms—not just one. This decision is a big win for the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, and it sends a strong message to other states considering similar laws.

Second, the Senate is now reviewing a major bill that includes the Hearing Protection Act and the SHORT Act—both aimed at removing suppressors and short-barreled firearms from NFA regulations. Today is a key day: the Senate parliamentarian is reviewing these parts of the bill to decide if they can remain in under the Senate’s Byrd Rule. This is part of a process that decides which parts of the bill meet budget rules.

The goal is to get the bill to President Trump by July 4th, and the full Senate vote could happen within days.

Bottom line: This is a critical moment for the Second Amendment. With a big court win and real progress in the Senate, now is the time for gun owners to stay involved and keep the pressure on lawmakers.

California AB 1078: A New Threat to Gun Rights

California is facing another round of aggressive gun control legislation in 2025, and AB 1078 is one of the most concerning bills making its way through the legislature. After covering a wave of new proposals since early this year, Second Amendment advocates are closely watching this one as it moves quickly toward the governor's desk.

What Is AB 1078?

AB 1078 is a direct response to a recent court decision that struck down California’s previous “one-gun-a-month” law as unconstitutional. Instead of accepting the ruling, California lawmakers are pushing AB 1078, which would limit firearm purchases to three guns per month. However, if the state wins its ongoing appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the limit would automatically revert to just one gun per month 30 days after the decision.

This makes the bill a lose-lose situation for gun owners: if the court upholds the restriction, it goes back to the original limit; if the court doesn’t, the new three-gun limit still undermines gun rights.

Where Does the Bill Stand?

• Introduced: February 20, 2025
• Passed the Assembly: June 2, 2025 (strictly along party lines)
• Moved to Senate Public Safety Committee: June 11, 2025

With Democrats holding a supermajority, the bill has faced little resistance and could reach the governor’s desk soon—unless major public opposition emerges.

What Can Be Done?

Organizations like the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and the Gun Owners of California (GOC) are actively lobbying against the bill, but meaningful change will only come if California residents speak up. Phone calls, emails, and public pressure are urgently needed to stop AB 1078 and similar proposals in their tracks.

Final Thoughts

AB 1078 isn’t just about numbers—it’s about a persistent strategy to chip away at Second Amendment protections. Whether it's limiting gun purchases, imposing new fees, or sidestepping court rulings, California lawmakers continue to push forward, largely unchecked. If you're a Californian who values your rights, now is the time to get involved.