Legislative Updates Archives - Apple Valley Gun Club

April 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Fri, 10 Apr 2026 13:32:23 +0000

April 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report April Focus

AB2571, 2022 session, finally defeated!

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. In summer 2022, California passed Assembly Bill 2571. The bill banned any marketing of firearms or accessories that might be attractive to minors. In its original form, the bill was so broad that teaching youth firearm safety education programs was illegal.

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.

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.”

But California was undeterred by that defeat. It prolonged the litigation by seeking an En Banc 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, the state has finally acquiesced. It now acknowledges what was obvious all along—it infringed on First Amendment rights and is paying a price for doing so.

The restrictions imposed by AB 2571 are finally moot and no longer in effect.

Legislation

SB 948, as introduced by Senator Arreguín. 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. report and make a violation of this provision a misdemeanor. The bill would prohibit a person from bringing a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 60

days, except as specified. specified, and make a violation of this provision a misdemeanor. By creating a new prohibition, this bill would create a new crime and therefore a new 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 an applicant for a firearm safety certificate, on or after July 1, 2028, 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 authorize the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of this subdivision. these provisions.

In addition to one hour of live-fire training on a gun range, the training shall include instruction on all of the following:

Federal and state laws related to possession, transportation, and storage of
The importance of secure storage to prevent unauthorized access and use of
Safe firearm handling and fundamentals of shooting
Risks of firearms and causes of
How to legally relinquish or transfer a
State laws pertaining to self-defense and techniques for conflict
Mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence.

March 16, amended and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.

AB 1006, as amended, 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 for a person to carry a concealed firearm if specified conditions are met, including, among others, that the applicant is not a disqualified person for the license, as specified, and the applicant is the recorded owner of the firearm with the Department of Justice. Existing law deems an applicant to be a disqualified person and cannot receive or renew a license if, among other reasons, the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, the applicant has been charged with any certain offense that was dismissed pursuant to a plea or dismissed with a waiver, as specified. Under existing law, a license issued pursuant to these provisions is valid for a period not to exceed 2 years from the date of the license, and any person who files an application knowing that any statement in the application is false is guilty of a misdemeanor.

This bill would also treat the spouse of the recorded owner of the firearm as the recorded owner for licensing purposes. The bill would include additional specified acts that would deem an applicant as a disqualified person, including providing any information that the applicant knew or should have known was inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with the application or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application for a new license or a license renewal, the applicant has been charged

with convicted of certain offenses, including knowingly and willingly threatening the life of any elected public official and other specified persons. By expanding the application of an existing crime and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would make other conforming changes.

AB 1974, as introduced, Stefani. Firearms: voluntary firearm storage program.

Existing law requires a person, who claims title to a firearm that is in the custody of a court or law enforcement agency and wishes to have it returned, to make an application for a determination by the Department of Justice as to whether the applicant is eligible to possess a firearm. Under existing law, a law enforcement agency or court that has taken custody of a firearm is prohibited from returning the firearm to an individual unless specified requirements are met, including, but not limited to, requiring the person to be eligible to possess a firearm and verifying that the firearm is not listed as stolen and the firearm has been recorded in the Automated Firearms System in the name of the person, as specified. Existing law requires any weapon that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would authorize a law enforcement agency, as defined, to create a voluntary firearm storage program that allows a person to voluntarily transfer custody of their firearm to the local law enforcement agency for temporary safekeeping purposes to prevent firearm violence, suicide, and other injury. The bill would authorize a law enforcement agency adopting this program to provide clear instructions on the procedure to voluntarily transfer custody of a firearm and to provide explicit instructions on the process for requesting return of the firearm, as specified. Upon receipt of a firearm, the bill would authorize a law enforcement agency to, among other things, check a certain database to ensure the firearm has not previously been reported lost, stolen, or involved in a crime and ensure that the requesting person is eligible to possess firearms when the firearm is returned to the person. The bill would require a law enforcement agency to destroy a firearm that a person failed to retrieve at the end of a time period specified by the law enforcement agency. agency, except as provided.

Existing law prohibits the carrying of a concealed firearm or the open carrying of a firearm, as specified. Existing law provides certain exemptions to these prohibitions, including exemptions for peace officers, retired peace officers, and persons possessing a valid license to carry a concealed firearm. Existing law generally regulates the sale and transfer of firearms, including, among other requirements and subject to exceptions, that the transfer of a firearm be conducted through a firearms dealer.

This bill would exempt the voluntary transfer of a firearm to a local law enforcement agency pursuant to the provisions above from these prohibitions and regulations.

March 26, amended and re-referred to Committee on Public Safety.

AB 1810, as amended, Berman. Firearms: centralized list. Firearms: dealer centralized list.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to keep a centralized list of all persons who are licensed firearms dealers and satisfy certain requirements, including having a valid federal firearms license and a regulatory or business license required by local government. Existing law requires the department to remove a person from the list if the person’s federal license has expired or been revoked. Existing law, beginning on January 1, 2024, requires the department to conduct inspections of firearms dealers at least every 3 years, except as provided, to ensure compliance with specified requirements. As part of the department’s inspections of firearms dealers, existing law requires the department to audit a dealer’s records that includes a sampling of at least 25% but no more than 50% of each record type. Existing law requires the department to assess annual fees not to exceed specified amounts to cover the reasonable costs of inspecting and maintaining this list and other similar centralized lists.

This bill would require the department to remove from the list a person who fails to comply with the requirements to be on the list and authorize the department to remove a person from the list who fails to remedy specified violations discovered as a result of the above-described inspections. The bill would subject a person removed from the list for these 2 reasons to a fine and make that person ineligible to be placed on the list for a period of 2 years. The bill would require the department to conduct a yearly inspection of the 10 firearm dealer locations with the highest percentage of total sales of firearms 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, as specified, pursuant to a certain yearly report. The bill would, for the fees charged for inspecting and maintaining the above-described lists, instead require the department to assess a reasonable annual fee. The bill would prohibit a fee adjustment from exceeding 15% over the previous year and exceeding the amount necessary to cover the costs described above.

Existing law requires the Department of Justice to keep a centralized list of all persons licensed to sell firearms. Existing law authorizes the department to remove from the centralized list a person who knowingly or with gross negligence violates specified provisions of law. Upon removal of a dealer from the centralized list, existing law requires notification to be provided to local law enforcement and licensing authorities in the jurisdiction where the dealer’s business is located.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions. March16, amended and re-referred to the Committee on Public Safety.

AB 1943, as amended, Gipson. Pupil safety: notifications: firearms.

Existing law requires a school district, county office of education, and charter school to annually inform parents and guardians of pupils at the beginning of the first semester or

quarter of the regular school term of California’s child access prevention laws and laws relating to the safe storage of firearms, as specified. Existing law requires the State Department of Education, on or before July 1, 2023, to develop, and subsequently update as provided, in consultation with the Department of Justice, and provide to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, and, upon request, to provide to private schools, model language for the notice regarding those child access prevention and safe storage of firearms laws.

This bill would revise and recast those requirements by, among other things, (A) instead requiring those local educational agencies to inform parents or guardians of each enrolled pupil of the importance of practicing secure firearm storage for all homes in which firearms are present through a notice entitled “Secure Firearm Storage Notification“ that contains, among other things, a description of the risks of children accessing unsecured firearms in the home and California’s child access prevention laws and laws relating to the safe storage of firearms,

(B) for all local educational agencies that maintain a website, requiring the notice to be additionally be posted, and annually updated, on the local educational agency’s department, commencing July 1, 2027, to post the model language for notice on its internet website, as specified, (C) requiring the department, on or before July 1, 2027, to provide formatting and content options for local educational agencies to post the notice on their respective internet websites and for posting other relevant information and resources about secure firearm storage using other internet-based communication options, and (D) requiring the department to encourage each local educational agency to adopt a policy and practice of providing the notice to parents, guardians, and caregivers when otherwise providing notice to parents, guardians, or caregivers of disciplinary actions or supports given related to threats against other pupils or threats of self-harm. The bill would make conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the department, on or before June 15, 2025, to curate and post on its internet website best practices pertaining to school shooter or other armed assailant drills for use by school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, as Existing law encourages a school district, county office of education, or charter school to comply with those best practices.

This bill would require those best practices to also include a recommendation to

distribute distributing the Secure Firearm Storage Notice published by the department when providing a specified drill-related notice to parents and guardians of pupils. pupils and a recommendation to post the notice on the local educational agency’s internet website.

This bill would require those best practices to also include a recommendation to distribute the Secure Firearm Storage Notice published by the department in Section 49896 when providing a specified drill-related notice to parents and guardians of pupils.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to send a notice to each middle school, junior high school, and high school that encourages each school to provide suicide prevention training to each school counselor at least one time while employed as a

counselor, provides information on the availability of the suicide prevention training curriculum developed by the department, and informs schools about the suicide prevention training provided by the department and describes how a school might retain those services.

This bill would require that notice to also include the Secure Firearm Storage Notification model content published by the department as an example of information about reducing access to lethal means that can be given by a school counselor to a pupil’s family, as provided.

March 23, amended and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations.

AB 2047, as introduced, Bauer-Kahan. Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology.

Existing law makes it a crime to knowingly or willfully cause 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 3-dimensional printer, as specified.

This bill would require the Department of Justice or other relevant state agency to engage in an investigation of known firearm blueprint design files and existing firearm blueprint detection algorithms, as defined. The bill would require, on or before July 1, 2027, the department or other relevant state agency to publish written guidance on performance standards for persons or entities engaged in the creation of firearm blueprint detection algorithm to be certified for use by 3-dimensional printer manufacturers, as specified. The bill would require the department or other relevant state agency that prepared the written guidance on performance standards to accept applications for certification of firearms blueprint detection algorithms and begin issuing certifications of algorithms that meet or exceed the performance standards on or before January 1, 2028, and would specify the grounds for revocation of certification pursuant to these provisions. The bill would require the department or other relevant state agency to publish written guidance on how to equip 3-dimensional printers with firearm blocking technology, as defined, and would require the performance standards to be publicly available on the department or other relevant state agency’s website.

This bill would require, on or before July 1, 2028, any business that produces or manufactures 3-dimensional printers for sale or transfer in California to submit to the department an attestation for each make and model of printer they intend to make available for sale or transfer in California, confirming, among other things, that the manufacturer has equipped that make and model with a certified firearm blueprint detection algorithm. If the department verifies a printer make and model is properly equipped, the bill would require the department to issue a notice of compliance, as specified. The bill would require, on or before September 1, 2028, the department to publish a list of all the makes and models of 3-dimensional printers whose manufacturers have submitted complete self-attestations and would require the department to update the list no less frequently than on a quarterly basis and to make the list available on the department’s internet website. The bill, beginning on March 1, 2029, would prohibit the sale or transfer of 3-dimensional printers that are not equipped with firearm blocking technology and that are not listed on the department’s list of manufacturers with a certificate of compliance

verification, except as specified. The bill would authorize a civil action to be brought against a person who sells, offers to sell, or transfers a printer without the firearm blocking technology.

This bill would also make it a crime to knowingly disable, deactivate, uninstall, or otherwise circumvent any firearm blocking technology installed in a 3-dimensional printer with intent to manufacture firearms or to distribute, sell, or transfer for consideration in California one or more modified versions of a 3-dimensional printer identified on the Department of Justice’s list of 3-dimensional printers eligible for sale in California. By creating a new crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

March 25, passed Committee on Public Safety and referred to Committee on he Judiciary.

SB 649, as amended, Alvarado-Gil. Criminal law: rights of victims and witnesses of crimes. Firearms: silencers.

Existing law generally regulates deadly weapons, including assault weapons. Existing law defines an assault weapon, including, among others, as a semiautomatic centrefire firearm, as specified, that has a threaded barrel capable of accepting a silencer. Existing law defines a silencer, among others, as any device or attachment intended to muffle the sound of a firearm.

Existing law makes it a felony for any person, firm, or corporation to possess a silencer for a firearm. Existing law exempts specified actions from those provisions, including the manufacture, possession, transportation, or sale or other transfer of a silencer to specified law enforcement agencies and military or naval forces by dealers or manufacturers registered under federal law.

Existing law authorizes a court to sentence an eligible person convicted of a felony to probation. Existing law prohibits granting probation in specified circumstances, including if the person possesses a silencer.

Existing law requires any weapon, including a firearm and any attachments, that was carried unlawfully for specified crimes to be surrendered to specified law enforcement entities. Existing law requires weapons surrendered pursuant to these provisions to be destroyed by the law enforcement entity.

This bill would replace the term “silencer” with the term “suppressor” in the above provisions.

Existing law declares the intent of the Legislature to ensure that all victims and witnesses of crimes, as defined, are treated with dignity, respect, courtesy, and sensitivity. Existing law enumerates the rights of victims and witnesses of crimes, including, but not limited to, the right to be informed by a prosecuting attorney of the final disposition of a case.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to a related provision. March 24, amended in the Senate.

AB 1948, as introduced, Ramos. 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 3 years from the date of the new license and 6 years from the date of the license for renewal. license. The bill would make conforming changes.

Amended and passed by the Assembly. March 26, in the Senate.

AB 1092, as amended, Castillo. Firearms: concealed carry licenses.

This bill would, for a license issued after January 1, 2026, and before January 1, 2027, extend the duration of those licenses to a period of time not to exceed 3 years from the date of the license. The bill would, for a license issued after January 1, 2027, extend the duration of those licenses to a period of time not to exceed 4 years from the date of the license.

From committee without further action under Joint Rule 62(a). See AB 1948.

Litigation

Baird V Bonta, a challenge to California’s ban on open carry in counties with populations over 200,000. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s law for open carry is unconstitutional. The law banned open carry in any county with a population greater than 200,000 and required a permit in counties with less.

The state has appealed to the Supreme Court, and a stay has been issued pending action by the court.

Duncan V Bonta, a challenge to California’s High-Capacity Magazine ban, has been distributed to the Supreme Court justices for review and was rescheduled (yet again). If the Supreme Court denies certiorari in this case ownership of all magazines holding more than 10 rounds will be banned in California. This will include currently “grandfathered” magazines held prior to January 1, 2000, and “freedom week” magazines.

Rhode V Bonta, the challenge to California’s ammunition restrictions, was heard by an En Banc panel of the Ninth Circuit District Court of Appeal on March 25. We are awaiting their decision.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

The post April 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

March 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Fri, 20 Mar 2026 13:54:36 +0000

March 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report March Focus

AB 1948, as introduced, Ramos. Firearms: concealed carry licenses.

This bill would extend the duration of those licenses to 3 years from the date of the new license and 6 years from the date of the license for renewal. The bill would make conforming changes.

AB 1092, as amended, Castillo. Firearms: concealed carry licenses.

Legislation

SB 948, as introduced by Senator Arreguín. Firearms: safety certificates.

safety certificate within 60 days, except as specified. By creating a new prohibition, this bill would create a new crime and therefore impose a state-mandated local program.

In addition to one hour of live-fire training on a gun range, the training shall include instruction on all of the following:

Federal and state laws related to possession, transportation, and storage of
The importance of secure storage to prevent unauthorized access and use of
Safe firearm handling and fundamentals of shooting
Risks of firearms and causes of
How to legally relinquish or transfer a
State laws pertaining to self-defense and techniques for conflict
Mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence.

AB 1006, as amended, Ramos. Firearms: concealed carry.

knew or should have known was inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with the application or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application for a new license or a license renewal, the applicant has been charged

AB 1974, as introduced, Stefani. Firearms: voluntary firearm storage program.

AB 1810, as introduced, Berman. Firearms: centralized list.

This bill would make technical, nonsubstantive changes to those provisions.

AB 1943, as amended, Gipson. Pupil safety: notifications: firearms.

Existing law requires a school district, county office of education, and charter school to annually inform parents and guardians of pupils at the beginning of the first semester or quarter of the regular school term of California’s child access prevention laws and laws relating to the safe storage of firearms, as specified. Existing law requires the State Department of Education, on or before July 1, 2023, to develop, and subsequently update as provided, in consultation with the Department of Justice, and provide to school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, and, upon request, to provide to private schools, model language for the notice regarding those child access prevention and safe storage of firearms

(B) for all local educational agencies that maintain a website, requiring the notice to be additionally be posted, and annually updated, on the local educational agency’s internet website, as specified, (C) requiring the department, on or before July 1, 2027, to provide formatting and content options for local educational agencies to post the notice on their respective internet websites and for posting other relevant information and resources about secure firearm storage using other internet-based communication options, and (D) requiring the department to encourage each local educational agency to adopt a policy and practice of providing the notice to parents, guardians, and caregivers when otherwise providing notice to parents, guardians, or caregivers of disciplinary actions or supports given related to threats against other pupils or threats of self-harm. The bill would make conforming changes. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires the State Department of Education, department, on or before June 15, 2025, to curate and post on its internet website best practices pertaining to school shooter or other armed assailant drills for use by school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools, as provided. Existing law encourages a school district, county office of education, or charter school to comply with those best practices.

Existing law requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction to send a notice to each middle school, junior high school, and high school that encourages each school to provide suicide prevention training to each school counselor at least one time while employed as a counselor, provides information on the availability of the suicide prevention training curriculum

developed by the department, and informs schools about the suicide prevention training provided by the department and describes how a school might retain those services.

AB 2047, as introduced, Bauer-Kahan. Firearms: 3-dimensional printing blocking technology.

SB 649, as amended, Alvarado-Gil. Firearms: silencers.

This bill would replace the term “silencer” with the term “suppressor” in the above provisions.

Litigation

The state has appealed to the Supreme Court, and a stay has been issued pending action by the court.

Duncan V Bonta, a challenge to California’s High-Capacity Magazine ban, has been distributed to the Supreme Court justices for review and was rescheduled (yet again) for conference on March 20. If the Supreme Court denies certiorari in this case ownership of all magazines holding more than 10 rounds will be banned in California. This will include currently “grandfathered” magazines held prior to January 1, 2000, and “freedom week” magazines.

Rhode V Bonta, the challenge to California’s ammunition restrictions, is scheduled for an En Banc panel of the Ninth Circuit District Court of Appeal during the week of March 23.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

The post March 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

February 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Wed, 18 Feb 2026 21:32:56 +0000

February 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report Legislation

SB 948, as introduced by Senator Arreguín. Firearms: safety certificates.

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 prohibit a person from bringing a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 60 days, except as specified. By creating a new prohibition, this bill would create a new crime and therefore impose a state-mandated local program.

In addition to one hour of live-fire training on a gun range, the training shall include instruction on all of the following:

Federal and state laws related to possession, transportation, and storage of
The importance of secure storage to prevent unauthorized access and use of
Safe firearm handling and fundamentals of shooting
Risks of firearms and causes of
How to legally relinquish or transfer a
State laws pertaining to self-defense and techniques for conflict
Mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence.

Litigation

Baird V Bonta, a challenge to California’s ban on open crry in counties with populations over 200,000. A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s law for open carry is unconstitutional. The law banned open carry in any county with a population greater than 200,000 and required a permit in counties with less.

The state has appealed to the Supreme Court, and a stay has been issued pending action by the court.

Duncan V Bonta, a challenge to California’s High-Capacity Magazine ban, has been distributed to the Supreme Court justices for review and was rescheduled (again) for conference on February 20. If the Supreme Court denies certiorari in this case ownership of all magazines holding more than 10 rounds will be banned in California. This will include currently “grandfathered” magazines held prior to January 1, 2000, and “freedom week” magazines.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

The post February 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

January 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 15:32:06 +0000

2026 Legislation/Litigation Report Baird V Bonta

A three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that California’s law for open carry is unconstitutional. The law banned open carry in any county with a population greater than 200,000 and required a permit in counties with less.

The state is expected to appeal to an En Banc panel of the Ninth Circuit which, if granted, would vacate the ruling from the three-judge panel.

The court has not issued a mandate, so NO CHANGES have taken effect yet. The ruling is expected to be stayed pending appeal.

Litigation

Duncan V Bonta, a challenge to California’s High Capacity Magazine ban, has been distributed to the Supreme Court justices for review and was scheduled for conference on December 5 and rescheduled for December 12. It has been rescheduled.

Rhode v Bonta, the challenge to California’s ammo background checks, has been ordered to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This order vacates the three-judge panel’s ruling, which upheld the trial court’s ruling that it is unconstitutional.

Litigation on AB5671, which bans marketing of firearms and related products to minors, is nearing completion. The parties are expected to settle, based on direction from the Ninth Circuit. The provisions of AB2571 are expected to be overturned by the settled ruling.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

The post January 2026 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

December 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 15:30:43 +0000

December 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update

December Focus

Beginning January 1, 2026, any firearm in your home will have to be secured using a DOJ approved locking device. An exception is made for firearms under your direct, immediate, control. Such as within arm’s reach or worn in your holster.

AB 1263, as amended, Gipson. Firearms: ghost guns.

This law prohibits 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.

In addition, this law has been interpreted as banning the online sale of certain firearms parts and tools that can be used to build firearms. Retailers are already restricting online sales to California addresses. Some retailers require buyers to upload a copy of their driver’s license, while others simply stopped selling to California citizens altogether.

Legislation

AB 1127, as amended, Gabriel. Firearms: converter pistols.

This law will, on and after July 1, 2026, prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define “machinegun-convertible pistol” as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and “pistol converter” as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function 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 suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license and removal from certain centralized lists maintained by the Department of Justice, and a 3rd violation punishable as a misdemeanor that shall result in the revocation of the dealer’s license and removal from certain centralized lists.

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 law expands the above definition of “machinegun” to include any full automatic-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.

SB 704, as amended, Arreguín. Firearms: firearm barrels.

Commencing January 1, 2027, this law, except as specified, prohibits 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 also prohibit a person from possessing a firearm barrel with the intent to sell, or offering to sell, unless the person is a licensed firearms dealer. The Commencing on July 1, 2027, except as specified, the bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to

conduct an eligibility 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 make a first and 2nd violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor, and any additional violations punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified. The bill would require the department to require the licensed firearms dealer to charge a fee up to $5 for each firearm barrel eligibility check, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

AB 584, as introduced, Hadwick. Firearms dealers and manufacturers: secure facilities.

This law expands the definition of a secure facility for firearms dealers 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.

AB 1078, as introduced, Berman. Firearms.

This prohibits a licensing authority from issuing a CCW 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 law requires 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.

The law additionally exempts 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.

This exempts 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.
For non-California residents, this law additionally requires, 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 law authorizes 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.

This law prohibits the issuance of a CCW 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 law requires a licensee to inform the local authority that issued the license of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime.

[As currently amended, the 3 in 30 provision would take effect only if an appeals court overturns the federal district court decision in Nguyen v ] This law increases 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.

AB 1263, as amended, Gipson. Firearms: ghost guns.

also authorizes 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.

This law requires, 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.

This law prohibits 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.

Litigation

Rhode v Bonta, the challenge to California’s ammo background checks, has been ordered to an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. This order vacates the three-judge panel’s ruling, wich upheld the trial court’s ruling that it is unconstitutional.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

The post December 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

November 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Sat, 17 Jan 2026 15:29:01 +0000

November 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update

November Focus

Legislation

AB 1127, as amended, Gabriel. Firearms: converter pistols.

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.

SB 704, as amended, Arreguín. Firearms: firearm barrels.

barrel eligibility check, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

AB 584, as introduced, Hadwick. Firearms dealers and manufacturers: secure facilities.

AB 1078, as introduced, Berman. Firearms.

This exempts 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.
For non-California residents, this law additionally requires, 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.

[As currently amended, the 3 in 30 provision would take effect only if an appeals court overturns the federal district court decision in Nguyen v ] This law increases 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.

AB 1263, as amended, Gipson. Firearms: ghost guns.

This law includes 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. This law also authorizes 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.

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.

Litigation

DUNCAN V BONTA, a challenge to California’s High Capacity Magazine ban, has been distributed to the Supreme Court justices for review and is scheduled for conference on November 21.

Respectfully submitted, David Smith

The post November 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

September 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Fri, 19 Sep 2025 14:48:51 +0000

September 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update

The California Department of Justice has issued a report finding that microstamping is a viable technology and can be required for all semi-automatic pistols. This finding will result in the microstamping being a hard requirement for all semi-auto pistols to be included in the safe for sale roster. Since there is no manufacturer that includes, or plans to include, microstamping in their firearm this will result in no semi-auto firearms being on-roster starting January 1, 2028. No new semi-auto pistols will be added to the roster.

Legislation

AB 1127, as amended, Gabriel. Firearms: converter pistols.

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, on and after July 1, 2026, prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define “machinegun-convertible pistol” as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machinegun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, as specified, and “pistol converter” as any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function 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 suspension or revocation of the dealer’s license and removal from certain centralized lists maintained by the Department of Justice, and a 3rd violation punishable as a misdemeanor that shall result in the revocation of the dealer’s license and removal from certain centralized lists.

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 machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.

Existing law, subject to certain exceptions, generally makes it an offense to manufacture or sell an unsafe handgun, as defined, and requires the Department of Justice to compile a roster listing all of the handguns that have been tested and determined not to be unsafe handguns. Existing law establishes criteria for determining if a handgun is an unsafe handgun, including, for firearms manufactured after a certain date and not already listed on the roster, the lack of a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect mechanism.

For any pistol listed on the roster on January 1, 2026, that was not subject to the above-described requirements to be on the list because it was submitted for testing before specified dates, that is thereafter only modified to change the design features that brought the pistol within the definition of a machinegun-convertible pistol, and that is submitted to an independent certified laboratory for testing pursuant to the above-described testing provisions before January 1, 2027, this bill would authorize that pistol to be submitted for testing and added to the roster without meeting those requirements.

This bill would make these provisions severable.

This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 3273.50 of the Civil Code proposed by AB 1263 to be operative only if this bill and AB 1263 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.

Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading on 9/9/2025.

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 January 1, 2027, this

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 also prohibit a person from possessing a firearm barrel with the intent to sell, or offering to sell, unless the person is a licensed firearms dealer. The Commencing on July 1, 2027, except as specified, the bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background an eligibility 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 make a first and 2nd violation of these provisions punishable as a misdemeanor, and any additional violations punishable as a misdemeanor or a felony, as specified. The bill would require the department to require the licensed firearms dealer to charge a fee up to $5 for each firearm barrel eligibility check, as specified. By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

The Senate passed this bill and the Assembly amended and passed this bill. On 9/9/2025 the Senate concurred with the Assembly amendments and it is being processed for the Governor’s signature.

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 amended and passed by the Senate. Back in the Assembly for concurrence with Senate amendments on 9/8/2025.

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 the Senate. Approved by the Governor on July 14.

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.

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.

[As currently amended, the 3 in 30 provision would take effect only if an appeals court overturns the federal district court decision in Nguyen v Bonta.] 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.

(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 amended and passed by the Senate.

Back in the Assembly for concurrence with Senate amendments on 9/9/2025.

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.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Amended and referred to third reading 9/9/2025.

Litigation

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 being tried by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which held oral arguments on December 4.

The three-judge panel ruled that the ammo restrictions in Prop 63 are unconstitutional and upheld the district court’s injunction against enforcing them. This includes the background check and face-to-face sales by a licensed dealer.

HOWEVER, the stay on the injunction remains until the district court re-issues the injunction. The state has petitioned for an En Banc review by the Ninth Circuit, which could vacate the ruling by the three-judge panel and result in a new hearing.

The three-judge panel’s ruling has been appealed to an En Banc review.

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 the entire ban, but a compromise did allow non-profit groups to conduct training and activities for youth. 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.

The Ninth Circuit has remanded this case back to the district court with instructions to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcing the ban on marketing to youth. The appeals court determined that the entire ban was likely to be found to be a First Amendment violation, and the plaintiffs are likely to prevail.

Nothing has changed yet, but the full injunction should be issued as the district court’s calendar permits.

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.

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.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

The post September 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

August 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Sun, 24 Aug 2025 20:19:47 +0000

August 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update

August Focus

There was no “freedom week” and the regulation remain in effect until further notice.

AB 1127, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: converter attachments.

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.

Amended and passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee. Passed by the Judiciary Committee and re-referred to the committee on Appropriations on 7/16/2025.

As currently amended this bill would still allow currently owned firearms to be “grandfathered” and allow private party transfers handled through a state licensed firearm dealer.

Legislation

California Legislature:

SB 704, as amended, Arreguín. Firearms: firearm barrels.

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.

The Senate Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing, including author’s amendments. Hearing was cancelled July 1 at author’s request.

AB 383, as introduced, Davies. Firearms: prohibition: minors.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee and re-referred to the committee on Appropriations on July 16.

AB 584, as introduced, Hadwick. Firearms dealers and manufacturers: secure facilities.

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.

Passed by the Assembly and the Senate. Approved by the Governor on July 14.

AB 1078, as introduced, Berman. Firearms.

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.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Amended and passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee on July 8.

AB 1263, as amended, Gipson. Firearms: ghost guns.

By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Amended and passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee and the Appropriations Committee. Re-referred to the committee on Appropriations on July 16.

Litigation

Nothing has changed yet, but the full injunction should be issued as the district court’s calendar permits.

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.

The CRPA, et al, filed an appeal for an En Banc review which was denied.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

The post August 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

July 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Mon, 14 Jul 2025 19:06:20 +0000

July 2025 Legislation/Litigation Update

July Focus

Nothing has changed yet, but the full injunction should be issued as the district court’s calendar permits.

Legislation

California Legislature:

AB 1127, as introduced, Gabriel. Firearms: converter attachments.

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 has passed the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Amended and passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee and re-referred to the Judiciary Committee on July 3.

SB 704, as amended, Arreguín. Firearms: firearm barrels.

This bill has passed the Senate and been forwarded to the Assembly.

The Senate Public Safety Committee has scheduled a hearing, including author’s amendments. Hearing was cancelled July 1 at author’s request.

AB 383, as introduced, Davies. Firearms: prohibition: minors.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Referred to the Senate Public Safety Committee on June 25.

AB 584, as introduced, Hadwick. Firearms dealers and manufacturers: secure facilities.

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.

Passed by the Assembly and the Senate. Presented to the Governor on July 3.

AB 1078, as introduced, Berman. Firearms.

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.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Amended and passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee on July 8.

AB 1263, as amended, Gipson. Firearms: ghost guns.

By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

Amended and passed by the Senate Public Safety Committee and re-referred to the Appropriations Committee on July 2.

Litigation

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 being tried by a three judge panel of the Ninth Circuit, which has held oral arguments on December 4. We are awaiting a decision.

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.

The CRPA, et al, filed an appeal for an En Banc review which was denied.

Respectfully submitted,

David Smith

The post July 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.

June 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report

AVGC — Fri, 20 Jun 2025 18:24:46 +0000

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 the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun, except as authorized. A violation of these prohibitions is punishable as a felony.

This bill has passed the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

SB 704, as amended, Arreguín. Firearms: firearm barrels.

This bill has passed the Senate and been forwarded to the Assembly.

Legislation

California Legislature:

AB 383, as introduced, Davies. Firearms: prohibition: minors.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

AB 584, as introduced, Hadwick. Firearms dealers and manufacturers: secure facilities.

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.

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.

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.

Passed by the Assembly and forwarded to the Senate.

AB 1263, as amended, Gipson. Firearms: ghost guns.

By creating a new crime, this bill would create a state-mandated local program.

AB 1092, as introduced, Castillo. Firearms: concealed carry licenses.

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.

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.

The CRPA, et al, filed an appeal for an En Banc review which was denied.

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.

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

The post June 2025 Legislation/Litigation Report appeared first on Apple Valley Gun Club.