Opponents Of Controversial Youth Hunting And Shooting Marketing State Bill Earn Legal Fees’ Compensation
A controversial state bill that would have prevented the firearms industry from marketing its products toward youth hunters and shooters, which a District Court judge blocked from proceeding with in 2024, resulted in legal fees being paid for the long-standing dispute.
Here’s a press release from the Sportsmen’s Alliance, which was among the most vocal opponents of the State Assembly Bill 2571, which the Sportsmen’s Alliance and others sued over compromising First and Second Amendment rights.
California Concedes: Sportsmen’s Alliance Wins Major First and Second Amendment Victory
March 18, 2026
Summary: After a four-year legal battle led by the Sportsmen’s Alliance and its partners, California has conceded that its youth firearms marketing law is unconstitutional and agreed to pay nearly $500,000 in attorney’s fees.
After four years of litigation, California finally conceded its youth firearms marketing law is unconstitutional and agreed to pay the challenging parties $481,792 in attorney’s fees. The Sportsmen’s Alliance was the first to sound the alarm about this Constitutional nightmare, and believe this victory isn’t just for Californians, but is one shared by all Americans.
What was California Assembly Bill 2571?
In summer 2022, California passed Assembly Bill 2571. The bill banned any marketing of firearms or accessories that might be attractive to minors. In it’s original form, the bill was so broad that advertising youth hunter education programs was illegal. Sportsmen’s Alliance opposed the bill, calling it “dangerous legislation that takes hunter education and firearm safety training off the table in California,” and criticized the bill sponsors for “worshipping anti-gun and anti-hunting dogma over firearm safety.”
The Legal Challenge by the Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation
The bill passed, and Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation, Safari Club International, Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation, and So Cal Top Guns, with support from the National Rifle Association, immediately sued, alleging that the law violated the First, Second, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. It took nearly two years and an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before we were able to get a preliminary order enjoining the state from enforcing the law.
Does the First Amendment Protect Firearms Advertising?
“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.”
Ninth Circuit Ruling on Gun Violence and Commercial Speech
The Ninth Circuit recognized the law “does not ‘directly’ and ‘materially’ further” the purported goals of “reducing gun violence and unlawful use of firearms by minors.” Instead, it bans truthful advertising — “for example, an ad showcasing a safer hunting rifle with less recoil for minors would likely be unlawful in California.”
A Decisive Settlement for Sportsmen’s Rights
But California was undeterred by that defeat. It prolonged the litigation by seeking an additional appeal before 11 judges on the Ninth Circuit—which was unanimously rejected. Then it fought the scope of the injunction in the district court. But after a second loss in the Ninth Circuit, California finally acquiesced. It now acknowledges what was obvious all along—it infringed on sportsmen’s First Amendment rights, and its paying a heavy price for doing so.
“This is why we have an in-house litigation team,” Jean continued. “And if California does it again, we will sue them again.”
The Sportsmen’s Alliance is fighting against those working to bully and crater our heritage and traditions. Join us or donate to the Sportsmen’s Legal Defense Fund to help stand up against the relentless assault on our values and lifestyle by animal extremists and gun-control advocates. Present and future generations are depending on your willingness to fight to protect the future of hunting, fishing, and trapping.
