(last updated September 19, 2022)
California leads the nation in passing commonsense firearms laws that are based on data and evidence. Several of these laws have been subjected to multiple legal challenges by gun-rights advocates. The Attorney General is vigorously defending these laws in federal and state courts.
- Nichols v. Newsom (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 14-55873). California laws prohibit residents from openly carrying loaded firearms in public in most circumstances. The plaintiff challenged these restrictions under the Second Amendment. The Attorney General prevailed in the federal district court on the constitutionality of the laws and continued to defend the laws on appeal at the Ninth Circuit. After Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General will continue to defend the laws in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.
- Baird v. Bonta (E.D. Cal., Case No. 19-cv-617). This is another Second Amendment challenge to California’s laws that prohibit individuals from openly carrying firearms in public in most circumstances. The federal district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, thus allowing California to enforce these laws while the case is pending. The Attorney General continues to defend the laws in federal court.
- Floyd v. San Jose Police Dept., et al. (N.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-751). The plaintiff alleges that his constitutional rights were violated when he was arrested by the San Jose Police Department for carrying a loaded firearm in his vehicle. He challenges the constitutionality of California Penal Code sections 25610 and 25850, which prohibit the public carrying of loaded firearms. He also sought damages under the federal civil rights statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but the federal district court dismissed the claim. Part of the plaintiff’s case is stayed—meaning, on hold—until the completion of his criminal proceedings.
- Duncan v. Bonta (U.S. Supreme Court, Case No. 21-1194). Plaintiffs in this case brought Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause challenges to California’s restrictions on the sale, manufacture, receipt, importation, or possession of large-capacity magazines (those that can accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition). An en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected all of the plaintiffs’ claims in a 7-4 decision in November 2021, but the United States Supreme Court vacated the decision in light of its ruling in Bruen. The Attorney General continues to defend the constitutionality of California’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines in the lower federal courts in accordance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen.
- Wiese v. Bonta (E.D. Cal., Case No. 17-cv-00903). Like Duncan, this case presents Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause challenges to California’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines. In this case, the plaintiffs also argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide adequate notice of who is covered by the ban and how to comply with its provisions regarding disposal of large-capacity magazines. The Attorney General continues to defend the law in federal court.
- Rupp v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 19-56004). Plaintiffs challenge on Second Amendment, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause grounds California’s Assault Weapons Control Act, which prohibits the sale, manufacture, or possession of rifles with certain features. The Attorney General prevailed at the federal district court on summary judgment in July 2019 and plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit. After Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General will continue to defend the Assault Weapons Control Act in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.
- Miller v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 21-55608). This is another challenge to California’s Assault Weapons Control Act. In June 2020, following a bench trial, the federal district court held that portions of California’s Act violated the Second Amendment. The Attorney General filed a notice of appeal and successfully petitioned the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the court’s judgment (allowing California to continue to enforce the law while the case was pending). After Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the Attorney General’s motion to remand the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General continues to defend the validity of the law after Bruen.
- Fouts v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 21-56039). Plaintiffs allege that California’s prohibition on the possession of billy clubs (or police batons) violates the Second Amendment. In 2021, the Attorney General prevailed in the federal district court on the constitutionality of the law and the appeal is currently pending at the Ninth Circuit.
- Cupp v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 21-16809). The plaintiff challenges several of California’s firearms laws including the Law Enforcement Release Program, which applies to individuals seeking return of firearms seized by law enforcement, and California’s prohibition of exotic weapons such as “slung shots” (which are distinct from sling shots). After Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit granted the parties’ request to remand the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General continues to defend the validity of the law after Bruen.
- Renna v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 20-cv-2190). California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) requires the Department of Justice to publish and maintain a roster of firearms that may be sold in California. To be added to the roster, a handgun must meet device safety, firing safety, and drop safety requirements. Some firearms that do not comply with the safety requirements but were available for sale in California before the UHA went into effect are still on the roster; others may be added if they are substantially similar to firearms already on the roster. Plaintiffs bring Second Amendment challenges to the UHA, and to laws regulating unserialized firearms and their precursor parts. The Attorney General is defending these laws in federal court.
- Boland v. Bonta (C.D. Cal. Case No. 22-cv-01421): The plaintiff brings a Second Amendment and dormant Commerce Clause challenge to the restriction in California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA) on the sale of handguns that have not been “drop-tested” and that are not equipped with certain safety features. The Attorney General is defending the law in federal court.
- Nguyen v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 20-cv-2470). The plaintiff alleges that California’s laws that limit individuals to purchasing one handgun or one semiautomatic centerfire rifle every thirty days violate the Second Amendment. The Attorney General is defending these laws in federal court.
- Defense Distributed v. Bonta (C.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-06200). Plaintiffs challenge laws regulating unserialized firearms and their precursor parts, under the Second Amendment. The Attorney General is defending these laws in federal court.
- Jones v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 20-56174). This is a Second Amendment challenge to a California law that prohibits federally licensed firearms dealers from selling or transferring firearms to individuals under the age of 21 (with certain exceptions). The federal district court denied a motion for a preliminary injunction against the law in November 2020, thus allowing California to continue enforcing the law while the case is pending. On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the Attorney General with respect to the law’s requirement that 18-20-year-olds obtain a hunting license prior to acquiring a long gun, but ruled against the Attorney General on the challenge to the law’s prohibition on the sale or transfer of semiautomatic centerfire rifles to 18-20-year-olds. After Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Attorney General asked the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider the panel’s ruling. The Ninth Circuit then remanded the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General will continue to defend the challenged law in accordance with the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling.
- Roe v. United States of America (E.D. Cal., Case No. 19-cv-270). Federal law prohibits individuals who have had certain mental health challenges from possessing firearms or ammunition. This suit seeks to prevent the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms from operating the background check system that firearms dealers use to determine whether a person can purchase a firearm. The federal district court has dismissed a claim that this scheme violates the Tenth Amendment. The Attorney General continues to defend the challenged law in federal court.
- Regina v. Bonta (Second District Court of Appeal, Case No. B316404). California law requires that firearm purchasers undergo a background check. If the purchaser’s eligibility cannot be determined after 30 days, the firearm dealer is informed that the purchaser’s background check status is undetermined, and the firearm dealer has discretion whether to complete the sale. The plaintiffs argue that the law violates the Second Amendment. The trial court held that the law did not violate the Second Amendment, and the case is now on appeal in the California Court of Appeal.
- Wallingford v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 21-56292). This is an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to provisions in restraining orders that prohibit the plaintiffs from possessing firearms and ammunition. The federal district court granted the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss and the Attorney General is defending the judgment on appeal.
- Junior Sports Magazines Inc. v. Bonta (C.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-004663). The plaintiffs challenge California Business and Professions Code section 22949.80, which was signed into law on June 30, 2022. Among other things, the law prohibits a “firearm industry member” from advertising or marketing a firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. Violators are subject to a maximum $25,000 civil penalty and a person harmed by a violation may bring a civil action to recover damages. The plaintiffs claim that the statute violates their First Amendment rights to free political and ideological speech, commercial speech, and freedom of assembly, as well as their 14th Amendment equal protection rights. The Attorney General is defending the law in federal district court.
- So Cal Top Guns, Inc. v. Bonta (E.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-01395). This is another challenge to California Business and Professions Code section 22949.80, which prohibits a “firearm industry member” from advertising or marketing a firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors. The plaintiffs claim that the statute violates their First Amendment free speech and assembly and their 14th Amendment equal protection rights, and that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The Attorney General is defending the law in federal district court.
- Abrera v. Newsom (E.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-01162). The plaintiff is suing the Attorney General and the Governor, as well as several local government entities over the constitutionality of numerous firearms statutes, including: (1) the assault weapons law; (2) the ban on semi-automatic pistols; (3) prohibitions on the sale or purchase of firearms precursor parts; (4) the ban on large capacity magazines; and (5) laws allowing for the seizure of weapons from persons who are a danger to themselves or others. The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief on a variety of legal theories, including the Second Amendment, due process, and the Takings Clause. The Attorney General is defending the laws in federal district court.
- Linton v. Becerra (N.D. Cal., Case No. 18-cv-7653). The plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of California’s laws that prohibit the purchase and possession of firearms and ammunition by felons. The Attorney General is defending the laws in federal district court.
- Rhode v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 20-55437). Plaintiffs challenge a California law that requires the California Department of Justice to pre-approve all ammunition sales, which must be conducted by, or pass through, a licensed ammunition vendor. The plaintiffs here allege that the law violates the Second Amendment, dormant Commerce Clause and equal protection, and that the law is preempted by federal law. The federal district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, prohibiting the Attorney General from enforcing the law pending resolution of the case. The next day, the Attorney General secured a stay of that decision from the Ninth Circuit, allowing California to continue to enforce the law while the case is pending. The Attorney General continues to defend the constitutionality of the law in federal court.
- Zeleny v. Newsom (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-15870). This is an as-applied challenge to California’s open-carry regime. The plaintiff seeks to use unloaded firearms to “amplify” his protests against the City of Menlo Park and a private business there. He argues that California’s open carry laws violate the Second Amendment; are void for vagueness; and violate the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause by allowing movie and TV studios to use firearms as part of their productions, while denying “protesters” like him the right to carry firearms openly. The federal district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment in July 2021. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily closed the case pending potential amendments to existing law.
- Franklin Armory, Inc. v. California Department of Justice (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCP01747). Franklin Armory, Inc. and the California Rifle and Pistol Association allege that the electronic system Department of Justice’s Bureau of Firearms utilizes to accept and process applications for firearm sales and transfers does not allow gun dealers to submit applications to sell or transfer “undefined subtype” firearms, which are firearms that do not fit within any of the standard categories of “handgun”/”pistol,” “rifle” or “shotgun.” In January 2022, the court granted the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the causes of action for writ of mandate, injunction, and declaratory relief. The plaintiff’s request for damages are still pending and are set for trial in 2023.
- Briseno v. Bonta (C.D. Cal., Case No. 21-cv-09018). This is a Second Amendment, substantive due process, and procedural due process challenge, alleging that the Department of Justice imposed technological and administrative barriers that prevented the plaintiffs from purchasing centerfire variants of Franklin Armory’s Title 1 firearms before Senate Bill 118 (2019-2020 Regular Session) prohibited the sale of those firearms. In August 2022, the federal district court stayed the case—meaning, placed the case on hold—pending the resolution of the related state court case (i.e., Franklin Armory, Inc. v. California Department of Justice).
- Campos v. Becerra (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2020-00030178). California law requires the Department of Justice to conduct a background check when a person purchases or transfers a firearm. The plaintiffs allege that the Department of Justice violated California law by taking more than ten days to process background checks during the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that the background checks should have been approved after ten days, notwithstanding the Department’s inability to conduct the checks within ten days. The Attorney General opposed this interpretation of the law.
- AB 173 Litigation: Doe v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:22-cv-00010; Barba v. Bonta, (San Diego Superior Court No. 37-2022-00003676). The Attorney General is defending Assembly Bill 173 (2021-2022 Regular Session) in two separate challenges in federal and state court. The plaintiffs challenge AB 173, which clarifies the process by which the Department of Justice may provide certain researchers firearms information to facilitate research into firearm violence prevention policies. They seek to enjoin the law under Second Amendment, privacy, and due-process theories, which would prevent researchers from using the data to study the efficacy of firearms policies.
- B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom (S.D. Cal., Case No. 21-cv-01718). Plaintiffs challenge the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 893 (2019-2020 Regular Session), which went into effect January 1, 2021, and bans the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego. The plaintiffs contend that the law effectively ends all gun shows at the Fairgrounds and that it violates the First Amendment and other constitutional or statutory provisions. The law continues to allow expressive activity, firearms training, and sales of other firearm-related products that many gun show vendors already sell at shows instead of firearms. The Attorney General is defending the law in federal court.
- B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom (C. D. Cal., Case No. 8:22-cv-01518). Plaintiffs assert First Amendment and equal protection challenges to California’s prohibition on the sale of firearms, ammunition, and firearm precursor parts at the Orange County Fair & Event Center, contending that this prohibition (Senate Bill 264 (2021-2022 Regular Session) effectively ends gun shows at that venue. The Attorney General is defending the law in federal court.
