Got a big 2A win today to talk about. Actually, it’s the First Amendment win that directly affects the Second Amendment. Hey Freedom Family, welcome back to the channel where you get the news that the mainstream media refuses to cover. Guns and Gadgets, your premier source for Second Amendment news. Today we’re talking about a massive legal victory for freedom of speech and the Second Amendment coming out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yeah, that Ninth Circuit. This one’s a sneaky anti-gun censorship law in California that was targeting youth shooting sports and firearms education.

Before we dive in, I want to thank the sponsor of today’s video, Checkmate Mags. Whether it’s for competition or defense, Checkmate has been making reliable American-made magazines for over four decades. With their expertise in high-quality manufacturing and a never-satisfied approach to innovation and refinement, Checkmate is the leading provider of high-quality aftermarket and OEM Freedom Seed loaders for many makes and models. Each Checkmate Mag is 100% developed and manufactured here in the United States of America and is backed by a lifetime factory warranty to ensure superior performance, reliability, quality, fit, and finish with your favorite firearm.

A big thank you to Checkmate for being the sponsor of this video. All right, by AB 160, which then became section 22949.80 of the business and professions code. That’s for all of the law geeks out there. The goal was to shut down anything remotely resembling pro-gun speech to minors. Now, this law banned all marketing, promotion, or even communication that could be seen as attractive to minors if it involved firearms. That’s right, gun safety education, youth hunting programs, junior competitions, all of it was on the chopping block. And it didn’t stop there.

Subsection B of the law even banned collecting or using a minor’s contact info for any firearm-related advertising, like sending a magazine subscription or letting a teen sign up for a youth trap league newsletter. And this wasn’t about protecting kids, it was about targeting a culture, a culture of responsible gun ownership being passed down from generation to generation. And that’s when the cavalry rode in. Groups like Junior Sports Magazines, Inc., the California Rifle and Pistol Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and others filed suit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

I think he’s got more lawsuits against him than on any other AG in the country when it comes to the Second Amendment. Now, these folks didn’t roll over. They sued to block the law on First Amendment grounds. Now, a little over a year ago, the Ninth Circuit agreed ruling that this section was likely unconstitutional. But get this, after that ruling, the district court only blocked one part of the law, subsection A, the part about marketing that appeals to minors. They left subsection B intact. And that’s the section that bans using a minor’s contact info for any kind of two-way outreach.

Now, the plaintiffs then appealed again. And now, today, the Ninth Circuit just delivered another slapdown to California’s unconstitutional gun control. Today, July 7, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. et al. v. Bonta, and made it crystal clear. The entire law is unconstitutional, every section of it. They reversed the lower court and ordered an injunction blocking all of section 22949.80, including subsection B. And here’s why this matters. The court reaffirmed that the law regulates lawful, non-misleading commercial speech, which is protected by the law directly and materially advances their stated goals, especially since minors can already legally shoot and hunt in California.

The law was overly broad, sweeping up any advertising related to lawful firearm use, even things like safety programs or 4-H competitions. And the so-called privacy justification for subsection B, the court saw right through that as well. California can’t pretend this was about privacy when the ban only applies to gun related communication. The bottom line, the court said you cannot weaponize privacy laws to shut down speech that you don’t like. Now, this case is technically a First Amendment fight, but if you’re a Second Amendment supporter, you should be cheering. Because make no mistake, California’s strategy here was indirect gun control.

If they can’t take your guns now, they’ll just stop the next generation from ever learning how to use one safely. They knew that they couldn’t ban hunting. They knew that they couldn’t ban teaching a kid how to shoot a 22. So they tried to ban the culture, the media, the advertising, the communication that connects youth to the shooting sports. They wanted to silence us by starving the future, but the court said, not on our watch. And I got to give the Ninth Circuit a little bit of credit. Let’s talk precedent here for a second.

This ruling leans heavily on a few important Supreme Court cases. Central Hudson, that’s the go-to test for evaluating regulations on commercial speech. And the court said that this law failed that test. Sorrell versus IMS Health, another major privacy and speech case. It said states can’t selectively restrict lawful speech just because they don’t like the message. This was key in showing that subsection B was also unconstitutional. And finally Moody versus Net Choice, which was a 24 case, which means it’s a more recent precedent saying states cannot craft viewpoint-based speech restrictions under the guise of neutral regulation.

So this ruling didn’t just protect gun speech, it reaffirmed that you cannot create speech restrictions based on politics, discomfort, or agenda. So what does this mean going forward? One, youth shooting sports programs can communicate freely again. Two, publications like Junior Shooters can resume circulation in California again. And three, groups like the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and everybody else on this lawsuit can reach young people without threat of $25,000 fines. In fact, everybody in this state can do that now. And here’s the kicker.

This ruling sends a clear message. States cannot trample the Constitution just because they don’t like guns. California’s Attorney General Rob Bond to try to regulate speech out of existence. He lost. Again. So this is a huge win for free speech, a huge win for shooting sports, for firearm safety education, and most importantly, the next generation of responsible gun owners. The courts are waking up, the Constitution still matters, and our side is fighting back with results. If you’re in this case, this is proof that when we fight smart, we can absolutely win.

Like this video and share it with your friends. And if you want more updates like this, be sure to subscribe and smash the notification bell. Also, a huge shout out again to Checkmate Mags for sponsoring today’s video made in the USA, built to last. They’ve got the mags that you can count on. Until next time, stay armed, stay informed, and stay free. I’m Jared, and this is Guns and Gadgets. Take care. [tr:trw].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.