But weeks before the Bruen decision, on May 11, a panel of the 9th Circuit overturned a federal district court decision and voted 2–1 in Jones v. Bonta (pdf), finding that California’s ban on 18- to 20-year-olds possessing long guns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles violated the Second Amendment. …

Yet when the case returned to the same three-judge 9th Circuit panel for rehearing, the panel declined to immediately resolve the case, instead vacating its May 11 decision and remanding the case to the district court “for further proceedings consistent” with Bruen. The panel did not provide reasons for its unanimous decision in its Sept. 7 order (pdf).

Although the decision of the panel—which previously ruled against the law—to return the case to the district court could be an example of judicial meticulousness, it gives California another opportunity to justify its age-specific ban on long gun possession that is now on an even weaker constitutional footing in light of the Bruen opinion.

Attorneys for the state argued the history standard enunciated in Bruen “dramatically changed the ground rules” for gun law litigation, so the case needed to return to the district court to examine new evidence, including historical records, the Los Angeles Times reported.