June 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update
June Focus
The California Department of Justice has completed the rulemaking process and beginning July First the Standard Ammunition Eligibility Check (SAEC) will increase from one dollar to five dollars. The fee to verify a COE is increasing from one dollar to five dollars. So, the fee to verify that someone is exempt from the five dollar SAEC fee is also five dollars.
AB 1127, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: converter attachments.
Existing law prohibits any person from selling, leasing, or transferring any firearm unless the person is licensed as a firearms dealer, as specified. Existing law prescribes certain requirements and prohibitions for licensed firearms dealers. A violation of any of these requirements or prohibitions is grounds for forfeiture of a firearms dealer’s license. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines “machinegun” to mean, among other definitions, any weapon that shoots or is designed to shoot automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.
This bill would prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define “convertible pistol” as any semiautomatic pistol that can be converted into a machinegun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter and “pistol converter” as any device or instrument that when installed in or attached to the slide of a semiautomatic pistol interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to discharge a number of shots or bullets rapidly or automatically with one continuous pull of the trigger. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine, a 2nd violation punishable by a fine that may result in a revocation of the dealer’s license, and a 3rd violation punishable as a misdemeanor that shall result in the revocation of the dealer’s license.
Existing law prohibits the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun, except as authorized. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a felony.
This bill would expand the above definition of “machinegun” to include any convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.
This bill has passed the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.
SB 704, as amended, Arreguín. Firearms: firearm barrels.
Existing law generally requires the sale or transfer of firearms to be conducted through a licensed firearms dealer. For purposes of these provisions, existing law defines “firearm” to mean a device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which is expelled through a barrel a projectile by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion and to include the frame or receiver of the weapon, including both a completed frame or receiver, or a firearm precursor part. For these purposes, existing law defines “firearm precursor part” as any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body, or similar article that has reached a stage in manufacture where it may readily be completed, assembled, or converted to be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm, or that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled, or converted.
Commencing on July 1, 2026, this bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer. The bill would require any costs incurred by the Department of Justice to implement these provisions, which cannot be absorbed by the department, to be funded from the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account upon appropriation by the Legislature. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
This bill has passed the Senate and been forwarded to the Assembly.
Legislation
California Legislature:
AB 383, as introduced, Davies. Firearms: prohibition: minors.
Existing law prohibits a juvenile who is adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of specified serious or violent offenses from subsequently owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a misdemeanor or as a felony.
Existing law also prohibits certain others persons, including a person who is convicted of a felony offense, from owning a firearm or ammunition. Existing law requires a person subject to those orders to relinquish any firearms or ammunition they own and specifies the procedures to be used to relinquish those firearms or ammunition. Those procedures, among other things, require the court to provide specific instructions to the defendant and to assign the matter to a probation officer to investigate whether the defendant owns, possesses, or has under their custody or control any firearms, require a law enforcement agency to update the Automated Firearms System to reflect any firearms that were relinquished to the agency pursuant to these procedures, and require a defendant to timely file a completed Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form. Existing law makes it an infraction for a defendant to fail to timely file that form.
This bill would expand the prohibition on juveniles subsequently owning or possessing firearms until 30 years of age by making that prohibition applicable to juveniles who are adjudged a ward of the juvenile court due to the commission of certain offenses relating to the possession of firearms or ammunition by a minor. The bill would also make those procedures to relinquish firearms or ammunition applicable to a juvenile who is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age. By expanding the scope of a crime and expanding the duties of local probation departments and law enforcement agencies, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law allows a search warrant to be issued upon probable cause, supported by affidavit, naming or describing the person to be searched or searched for, and particularly describing the property, thing, or things and the place to be searched. Existing law also specifies the grounds upon which a search warrant may be issued, including, among other grounds, that the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a person prohibited from owning that firearm due to a domestic violence restraining order, as specified.
This bill would additionally allow a search warrant to be issued when the property or things to be seized include a firearm that is owned by, or in the possession of, or in the custody or control of, a juvenile who is subject to the prohibition on owning or possessing a firearm until they are 30 years of age when the court has made a finding that the person has failed to relinquish the firearm as required by law.
Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.
AB 584, as introduced, Hadwick. Firearms dealers and manufacturers: secure facilities.
Existing law defines a secure facility, for purposes of requirements for firearms dealers to store firearms when the dealer is not open for business, as a building that, among other requirements, has perimeter doorways with specified characteristics, including that the doorway is a windowless or windowed steel security door equipped with both a dead bolt and a doorknob lock, as specified, or a metal grate that is padlocked and affixed to the licensee’s premises, as specified. Existing law defines a secure facility, for purposes of requirements for firearms manufacturers to store manufactured firearms and barrels, as a facility that has perimeter doorways with additional specified characteristics, including that the doorway has hinges and hasps attached to doors by welding, riveting, or bolting with nuts on the inside of the door or that are installed so that they cannot be removed when the doors are closed and locked.
Under existing law, failure to comply with these requirements is grounds for the forfeiture or revocation of a license or the imposition of a civil fine, as specified.
This bill would expand the definition of a secure facility for the entities described above to allow a doorway with a windowed or windowless steel door that is equipped with panic hardware that operates a multipoint lock that bolts into the interior frame of the door, as specified.
Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.
AB 879, as introduced, Patterson. Firearms: unsafe handguns.
Existing law specifies that the sale of an unsafe handgun to certain specified entities, including county probation departments, and members of those entities, is only authorized if the handgun is to be used as a service weapon by a peace officer who has successfully completed the basic course prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and who qualifies with the handgun, as specified, at least every 6 months. Existing law also provides that this training requirement may be satisfied by completion of the firearm portion of a training course prescribed by POST, if that training was completed before January 1, 2021.
This bill would instead authorize a peace officer employed by a county probation department and using an unsafe handgun as a service weapon to satisfy the above-described training requirement by completion of the firearm portion of a training course prescribed by POST.
Because the bill would expand the application of the crime of improperly storing an unsafe handgun in an unattended vehicle to additional persons, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.
AB 1078, as introduced, Berman. Firearms.
(1) Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if certain requirements and other criteria are met, including, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Existing law requires a licensing authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether an applicant can receive or renew a license that includes, among other things, a review of all information provided in the application for a license, and a review of the information in the California Restraining and Protective Order System. Existing law prohibits the licensing authority from issuing a license if, among other things, the applicant has been convicted of contempt of court or court, has been subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, unless that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than 5 years prior to receipt of the completed application. application, or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, has been convicted of specified criminal statutes.
This bill would also prohibit a licensing authority from issuing a license if an applicant was convicted of, under any federal law or law of any other state that includes comparable elements of, contempt of court or specified criminal statutes in the 10 years prior to the completed application or was subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order.
This bill would require the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
The bill would additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
(2) Existing law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a firearm from carrying a firearm in specified places, including schools, government buildings, hospitals, zoos, parks, churches, and a bus, train, or other form of public transportation. Existing law exempts a firearm that is secured in a lock box, as specified, under certain circumstances, from these prohibitions.
This bill would exempt a firearm that is unloaded and locked in a lock box for the purpose of transporting the firearm from the prohibition on carrying the firearm on a bus, train, or other form of public transportation, including a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public transportation authority.
(3) Existing law requires, when a person applies for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, a licensing authority, as specified, to issue or renew a license if the applicant has provided proof that, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, including live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range, and the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued.
This bill would clarify that these requirements for a new license or license renewal specifically apply to a California resident. For non-California residents, the bill would additionally require, among other requirements, the applicant to attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which the applicant has applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time, and that the applicant has completed live-fire shooting exercises for each pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry in California. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms to non-California residents and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
If a psychological assessment on an initial application to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is required by a licensing authority, existing law requires the applicant to be referred to a licensed psychologist acceptable to the licensing authority.
This bill would authorize a licensing authority to allow a non-California resident applicant to satisfy this psychological assessment with a virtual psychological assessment, as specified, or approve this examination with a provider located within 75 miles of the applicant’s residence.
Existing law prohibits a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person from being issued if the Department of Justice determines that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm.
This bill would prohibit the issuance of that license if an applicant provides any inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with an application for a license, a license renewal, or an amendment to a license. The bill would require a licensee to inform the local authority that issued the license of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime.
(4) Existing law prohibits a person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. Existing law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm to a purchaser when the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that, within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a firearm. Existing law requires a licensed dealer of firearms to conspicuously post a prescribed firearms safety warning message within the licensed premises, including that no person shall make an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period, and no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period.
An existing federal district court order in a case pending appeal has enjoined the enforcement of the law limiting the number of firearms that a person is allowed to purchase in a 30-day period.
This bill would increase the number of firearms that a person can apply to purchase within any 30-day period from one to 3 and would prohibit delivery of a firearm by a dealer if the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the purchaser has made an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than 3 firearms cumulatively within the 30-day period preceding the date of the application, as specified. The bill would make a conforming change to the required firearms safety warning.
If a mandate is issued following an appeal reversing the district court’s order and judgment, this bill, on the 30th day after the issuance of the mandate, would decrease the number of firearms that can be purchased within any 30-day period to one. The bill would require the Attorney General to notify every licensed firearms dealer in California, by the 30th day after the issuance of the mandate, that the number of firearms a person may purchase within any 30-day period decreased to one. If no such mandate is issued, the bill would maintain the number of firearms that can be purchased within any 30-day period at 3.
(5) Existing law makes it a crime for a person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a felony, as specified. Existing law makes those provisions inapplicable to a conviction or warrant for a felony if, both the conviction of a like offense under California law can only result in imposition of felony punishment and the defendant received either, or both, a sentence to a federal correctional facility for more than 30 days and a fine exceeding $1,000.
This bill would additionally make those provisions inapplicable to a conviction for a nonviolent felony under the laws of any other state if the conviction has been vacated, set aside, expunged, or otherwise dismissed and, if the conviction resulted in a firearms prohibition, the conviction relief restored the firearms rights, or if the conviction did not involve the use of a dangerous weapon and the person received a pardon, as specified.
Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.
AB 1263, as amended, Gipson. Firearms: ghost guns.
Existing law makes it a crime for a person to manufacture or cause to be manufactured specified firearms. Existing law prohibits a person, other than a state-licensed firearms manufacturer, from using a computer numerical control (CNC) milling machine or three-dimensional printer to manufacture a firearm.
This bill would prohibit a person from knowingly or willfully causing another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms or knowingly or willfully aiding, abetting, prompting, or facilitating the unlawful manufacture of firearms, including the manufacture of assault weapons or .50 BMG rifles or the manufacture of any firearm using a three-dimensional printer or CNC milling machine, as specified. The bill would make a violation of these provisions a misdemeanor.
By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.
Existing law authorizes a civil action against a person who knowingly distributes or causes to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code to any person, except as specified. For these purposes, existing law defines “digital firearm manufacturing code” to mean any digital instructions in the form of computer-aided design files or other code or instructions that may be used to program a CNC milling machine, a three-dimensional printer, or a similar machine to manufacture or produce a firearm, including a completed frame or receiver or a firearm precursor part. Existing law authorizes the Attorney General, county counsel, or city attorney to bring an action against this person and seek a civil penalty, as specified, for each violation, as well as injunctive relief.
This bill would include computer-aided manufacturing files as a digital instruction and include the manufacture or production of a machinegun and specified firearm components, including large-capacity magazines, as part of the definition of digital firearm manufacturing code. The bill would also authorize a person who has suffered harm in California as a result of a violation of these provisions to seek compensatory damages and injunctive relief. The bill would create a rebuttable presumption that a person violated the provision of unlawfully distributing or causing to be distributed any digital firearm manufacturing code if the person owns or participates in the management of an internet website that makes digital firearm manufacturing code available for purchase, download, or other distribution to individuals, and the internet website, under the totality of the circumstances, encourages individuals to upload, disseminate, or use digital firearm manufacturing code to manufacture firearms, as specified.
Existing law establishes a firearm industry standard of conduct, which requires a firearm industry member, as defined, to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls, as defined, and to take reasonable precautions to ensure that the member does not sell, distribute, or provide a firearm-related product, as defined, to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm-related products who fails to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls. For these purposes, existing law defines firearm accessory and firearm manufacturing machine.
This bill would require, prior to completing the sale or delivery in California or to a California resident of a firearm barrel that is unattached to a firearm, firearm accessory, or a firearm manufacturing machine, a firearm industry member to comply with specified requirements, including providing a prospective purchaser with clear and conspicuous notice that specified conduct is generally a crime in California, including manufacturing firearms to be sold or transferred to an individual without a license to manufacture firearms.
Existing law, subject to exceptions, provides that any person who has been convicted of certain misdemeanors may not, within 10 years of the conviction, own, purchase, receive, possess, or have under their custody or control any firearm and makes a violation of that prohibition a crime.
This bill would also prohibit any person convicted of specified misdemeanor violations, including manufacturing an undetectable firearm or knowingly or willfully causing another person to engage in the unlawful manufacture of firearms, on or after January 1, 2026, from owning, purchasing, or receiving any firearm within 10 years of the conviction, and makes a violation of that prohibition a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail, a fine, or by both the fine and imprisonment. Because this bill would expand the application of a crime to a larger class of potential offenders, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
AB 1092, as introduced, Castillo. Firearms: concealed carry licenses.
Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law requires a licensing authority to issue or renew a license to carry a firearm capable of being concealed if specified conditions are met, including, among others, that the applicant is not a disqualified person for the license, as specified, and the applicant has completed a specified course of training. Existing law makes a new or renewal license that is issued to be valid for a period of time not to exceed 2 years from the date of the license, except as otherwise provided.
This bill would extend the duration of those licenses to 4 years from the date of the license. The bill would make conforming changes.
Apparently died in the Assembly.
Litigation
Snope and Ocean State Tactical
These challenges to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been denied certiorari by the Supreme Court. The appeals court decisions, and therefore the bans addressed, will stand.
Smith & Wesson Brands v Estado Unidos Mexicanos
The government of Mexico filed a 10 billion Dollar lawsuit seeking to hold U.S. gun manufacturers liable for violence involving firearms in Mexico. The U.S. district court judge dismissed the case based on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. This law prevents gun manufacturers, distributers, and dealers from being liable for the use of their products in crimes.
The First Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. The Attorneys General of 16 states (including California) and the District of Columbia have filed an Amicus Curae brief supporting Mexico. The Supreme Court has reversed the appeals court decision and this case was dismissed.
Rhode v Bonta challenges the ammunition background check and importation rules. The district court, Judge Benitez of the Southern District of California, ruled on January 30 that these regulations are unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction against the state enforcing them. Judge Benitez did not stay his ruling, and there was a brief period when ammunition could be ordered from out of state and shipped straight to the consumer. The ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did stay the injunction on February 5, and the regulations immediately went back into effect. The case is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit, which has held oral arguments on December 4.
May v Bonta is a challenge to SB2 changes to CCW regulations. SB2 made much of the state into “sensitive places” where concealed carry of firearms would be illegal, even with a CCW permit. The training and application process to obtain and renew a CCW became for difficult and expensive. The trial court issued a preliminary injunction that prevented the new “sensitive places” regulations from being enforced. On December 24 (yes, Christmas Eve), 2023, a motions panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the lower court order and allowed the “sensitive places” rules from going into effect January 1. On January 6 the merits panel of the Ninth Circuit dissolved the stay; this reinstated the district court Preliminary Injunction declaring that the “sensitive places” part of SB2 unconstitutional. The “sensitive places” provisions of SB2 had not taken effect due to the district court’s preliminary injunction, although the other provisions are in effect while being challenged.
A hearing on May v Bonta, combined with two other cases regarding new CCW carry restrictions, was held April 11, 2024, in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit. The panel issued an order affirming the District Court’s ruling in part and reversing it in part.
The ruling means that CCW holders may not concealed carry in the following places, in addition to previous sensitive locations:
- Bars and Restaurants that serve alcohol
- Playgrounds, Youth Centers, Parks, Athletic Areas and Athletic Facilities
- Most real property under the control of the Department of Parks and Recreation or Department of Fish and Wildlife
- Casinos and similar gambling establishments
- Stadiums and Arenas
- Public Libraries
- Amusement Parks
- Zoos and Museums
- Parking areas connected to those places
- Parking areas connected to other sensitive places listed in the statute.
It is interesting to note that the ruling allowed the regulations for private property in Hawaii but left the private property rule in California enjoined. In Hawaii a property owner or manager can give verbal or written permission to concealed carry, but the California language (which is enjoined and not in effect) requires a DOJ approved sign to be posted saying concealed carry is allowed on that property.
The CRPA, et al, filed an appeal for an En Banc review which was denied.
Further legal action will be taking place at the US District Court for the central district of California. This ruling deals with the Preliminary Injunction, the district court has not issued a final decision.
United States v Duarte
A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled in May, 2023, that Mr. Duarte should not be denied second amendment rights even though he is a convicted felon. The charge was non-violent and did not demonstrate that he is a danger to others. The Ninth Circuit has voted to re-hear the case En Banc. This vacates the ruling of the three-judge panel, and the case will be completely tried over before an eleven-judge panel. Judge Lawrance Van Dyke wrote a dissenting opinion, saying that the court should have allowed the previous ruling to stand. He noted that none of the current Supreme Court Justices had served in the Ninth Circuit and noted that opposition to the Supreme Court precedents was common in second amendment cases heard by the Ninth Circuit.
Duncan v Bonta is the challenge to the “High-Capacity Magazine” ban, which Judge Roger Benitez found unconstitutional in 2017. In 2018 a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Judge Benitez’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit, responding to a petition from the state, then vacated the ruling of the three-judge panel and reheard the case En Banc, meaning an eleven-judge panel. The En Banc ruling reversed Judge Benitez’s ruling. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, vacated the Ninth Circuit ruling, and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to reconsider the case in light of the Bruen decision. NYSRPA v Bruen is a Supreme Court decision that includes clear direction to inferior courts on how to handle second amendment cases. The Ninth Circuit in turn remanded the case back to Judge Benitez. Judge Benitez has again found the “High Capacity Magazine” ban unconstitutional, and issued an injunction against the state enforcing Penal Code Section 31320. Judge Benitez stayed his order for ten days to allow the state to appeal back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which the Attorney General did. The Ninth Circuit assigned the petition for a stay to the 11-judge panel that previously heard the case, rather than the normal process of sending it to a three-judge “motions panel”, and the 11-judge panel granted the stay on Judge Benitez’ ruling. A hearing on the merits by the same 11-judge “En Banc” panel was held March 19, 2024. We are waiting for a decision.
Jr. Shooting Sports Magazine v Bonta challenges the California ban on marketing or advertising firearms and firearm related products to youth. The district court denied the petition for a Preliminary Injunction against enforcing this. The denial was appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel ruled the district court erred in denial of an injunction. The state then petitioned for an En Banc review of the three-judge panel’s decision. On February 20, 2024, the petition for an En Banc review was denied, and the case was returned to the district court to reconsider the Preliminary Injunction. The district court has not yet acted. On December 30, 2024, a motion for an injunction until the matter is resolved was denied.
Boland V Bonta a challenge to the California Unsafe Handguns Act (AKA Pistol Roster) has been vacated and pended to Duncan v Bonta, which is the challenge to the “large capacity magazine” ban. Miller v Bonta, a challenge to the Assault Weapons Ban, had previously been pended to Duncan v Bonta. It appears the eleven judge En Banc panel will decide all three for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
A federal district court judge, the Honorable Josephine Staton of the Central District of California, has ruled the Assault Weapon Control Act constitutional and granted the state’s motion for summary judgement in Rupp v Bonta, which is a parallel case to Miller V Bonta. The judge held that the assault weapon ban did not infringe, because the second amendment only applies to “a well regulated militia.” This case had been previously decided by the district court, and that decision was upheld by the Ninth Circuit. It was on appeal to the Supreme Court at the time of the Bruen decision and was vacated and remanded back to the Ninth Circuit who remanded back to Judge Staton for reconsideration.
Richards v Bonta is a challenge to California’s ten-day waiting period. The Plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, and several named individuals. The plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgement on July 28.
James v Mederos challenging the 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition is still awaiting trial in the Superior Court.
Respectfully submitted,
David Smith
