Mirabelli v. Bonta

In Mirabelli v. Bonta, plaintiff Mirabelli challenged California Attorney General Rob Bonta over the state's restrictions on firearm magazines and related regulations. The case was decided on March 2, 2026, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mirabelli argued that California's limitations violated the Second Amendment by infringing on the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. The state defended the laws as necessary for public safety and crime reduction. The court examined the text, history, and tradition of firearm regulation, applying the standard set by recent Supreme Court precedent. This case addressed whether modern capacity limits have historical analogues and whether such restrictions are consistent with the nation's regulatory tradition. The ruling provided guidance on the scope of permissible firearm laws in the Ninth Circuit and beyond.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that certain California firearm restrictions were unconstitutional, finding insufficient historical analogues for the challenged provisions, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the Second Amendment.

Whether California's firearm magazine restrictions violate the Second Amendment under the text, history, and tradition test established by the Supreme Court.

The decision affects firearm regulations across California and potentially other states within the Ninth Circuit, influencing ongoing debates over gun control and individual rights. It may prompt legislative revisions and further litigation on the scope of permissible firearm restrictions.