March 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update
March Focus
AB 1187, as introduced, Celeste Rodriguez. Firearms: safety certificates.
Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a personal firearm importer, within 60 days of bringing any firearm into this state, to, among other things, submit a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question to the Department of Justice.
This bill would also require that personal firearm importer to obtain a valid firearm safety certificate and include a copy of the valid firearm safety certificate within the report. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for that personal firearm importer to bring a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 60 days, except as specified. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires an applicant for a firearm safety certificate to pass a test developed by the Department of Justice covering specified subjects, including, among others, the laws applicable to carrying and handling firearms and the responsibilities of ownership of firearms.
This bill would require any applicant for a firearm safety certificate, on or after July 1, 2027, to complete a training course no less than 8 hours in length that, among other things, includes instruction on firearm safety and handling and live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of this subdivision.
AB1187 Text: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1187
AB 1333, as introduced, Zbur. Crimes: homicide.
Existing law defines homicide as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with or without malice aforethought, as specified. Existing law establishes certain circumstances in which homicide is justifiable, as specified.
This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property. The bill would additionally clarify circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable, including, among others, when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.
NOTE: While this sounds bad on its face, the text of the bill show it to be even worse. Review it here: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1333
Legislation
US Congress:
A number of bills have been introduced in the United States Congress. I will update individual bills as, and if, they advance beyond the house where they are introduced.
California Legislature:
SB 15, as introduced, Blakespear. Firearms.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to conduct inspections of certain firearm dealers every 3 years in order to ensure compliance with specified requirements. Existing law requires inspections to include a sampling of between 25% and 50% of dealer records of each type. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a fee, up to $115, in order to cover various costs, including the costs of inspections.
This bill would instead require the department’s sampling of dealer records to include at least 25% of each record type. The bill would also authorize the department to periodically increase the inspection fee, as specified.
The bill would require the department to annually inspect the 10 firearm dealer locations, as specified, with the highest percentage of total sales that were recovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime. The bill would require the department to conduct the inspections within 12 months of the release of its annual report unless the dealer location has been inspected within 6 months prior to the release of the report.
Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the department any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified.
The bill would also require firearm dealers, commencing January 1, 2028, to maintain inventory records, as specified, at their place of business in a manner prescribed by the department. The bill would additionally require firearm dealers to produce an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, certifying the accuracy of all records, upon request. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law requires the department to keep a centralized list of all persons who meet the specified requirements of a dealer, licensee, or person licensed, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to remove various persons from this list, including those whose federal firearms license has expired or has been revoked.
The bill would additionally authorize the department to remove a person from the centralized list who has failed to comply with licensing requirements or who, among other things, failed to allow the department to conduct an inspection or failed to maintain accurate business hours with the department. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine and render a person ineligible for placement on the centralized list for 2 years from the date of removal from the list.
AB 256, as introduced, DeMaio. Crimes involving firearms.
Existing law establishes that the state has a compelling interest in protecting its citizens from crimes involving firearms. Existing law generally regulates the manufacture, distribution, transportation, and importation of specified firearms.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation relating to crimes involving firearms.
SB 320, as introduced, Limón. Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.
Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person that has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person that has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person that has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm. Existing law generally makes a violation of the Penal Code a misdemeanor.
Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state of federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law requires the department to participate in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
This bill would require the Department of Justice to develop and launch a system to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to, and subsequently remove their own name from, the California Do Not Sell List, with the purpose of preventing the sale or transfer of a firearm to the person who adds their name, as specified. The bill would allow a person to add their name to the list by submitting specified information to a sheriff or municipal police department, and would require that sheriff or municipal police department to verify the information and send it to the Department of Justice. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. The bill would require the department to ensure that information on the list is uploaded and reflected in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. This bill would allow a person, after a specified period of time, to request removal from the list. The bill would make a person’s inclusion or removal from the list confidential, except for disclosure to a law enforcement officer acting in the performance of their duties, and would authorize a person whose confidentiality is violated to bring a private civil action for appropriate relief, as specified. The bill would prohibit requiring a person to voluntarily waive their firearm rights as a condition of employment or of receiving any benefits or services. By creating a new prohibition, this bill would create a new crime and therefore impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
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 with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
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.
SB 397, as introduced, Jones. Firearms.
Existing law generally regulates deadly weapons, including firearms, and defines the term “firearm” for this purpose.
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to those provisions.
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.
SB 704, as introduced, Arreguín. Firearms: ammunition sales.
Existing law, as amended by the Safety for All Act of 2016, an initiative statute approved by the voters as Proposition 63 at the November 8, 2016, statewide general election, requires the sale of ammunition to be conducted by or processed through a licensed ammunition vendor. Existing law exempts from that requirement the sale, delivery, or transfer of ammunition to specified individuals, including a sworn peace officer or sworn federal law enforcement officer who is authorized to carry a firearm in the course and scope of the officer’s duties. A violation of this provision is a misdemeanor. Proposition 63 allows its provisions to be amended by a vote of 55% of the Legislature so long as the amendments are consistent with and further the intent of the act.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.
AB 879, as introduced, Patterson. Firearms: unsafe handguns.
Existing law makes it a crime, punishable by not more than one year in county jail, to manufacture or cause to be manufactured, import into the state for sale, keep for sale, offer or expose for sale, give, or lend an unsafe handgun. Existing law establishes certain exemptions to this prohibition, including, among others, exemptions for sales to specified law enforcement agencies and other specified government agencies for use by specified employees and sales to specified peace officers.
This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.
AB 1006, as introduced, Ramos. Firearms: concealed carry.
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 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.
This bill would make a technical, nonsubstantive change to these provisions.
AB 1078, as introduced, Berman. Firearms.
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 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.
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.
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.
AB 1127, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: converter attachments.
Existing law defines a machine gun as any weapon that shoots, is designed to shoot, or can readily be restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. Existing law prohibits, among other things, the conversion of a firearm into a machine gun. A violation of this prohibition is punishable as a felony.
This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation regarding semi-automatic firearms that can be converted into automatic firearms by a converter attachment.
AB 1316, as introduced, Addis. Hunting licenses: information on firearms.
Under existing law, a hunting license grants the privilege to take birds and mammals. Existing law requires the Department of Fish and Wildlife to issue an annual hunting license upon payment of a specified fee that varies in amount depending on the age and residency of the applicant. Under existing law, an annual hunting license is valid for a term of one year beginning on July 1 or for the remainder of the term if issued after July 1. Existing law also requires the department to issue a lifetime hunting license to a resident of the state upon payment of a specified fee that varies in amount depending on the age of the person.
This bill would require the department, beginning July 1, 2027, to ensure that every person who purchases a hunting license receives, at minimum, information on certain topics related to firearms, including the safe storage of firearms, liability for parents and guardians who should have known their child could access a firearm at home, basic California firearm laws, and how to legally transfer or relinquish a firearm. The bill would authorize the department, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to promulgate regulations regarding the implementation of this requirement, and to include additional information to be provided with a hunting license.
Litigation
Snope v Brown (formerly Bianchi v Brown)
This challenge to the Maryland ban of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines has been distributed for conference and repeatedly relisted without action.
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.
B&L Productions v Newsom
In a combined case dealing with gun shows on state property, including fairgrounds, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the injunction that allowed gun shows to continue on state property until the case is finally resolved. Even though the state did not oppose a motion to stay the ruling pending appeal, the court declined to stay the order and vacated the existing injunction. This action effectively ends gun shows on state property, including most fairgrounds. The order also says that costs are awarded to the state in both cases.
CRPA has filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court to protect the injunction in the interest of justice.
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.
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 heard oral arguments and we are awaiting an answer.
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.
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
