(last updated October 24, 2024)
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. Attorney General Bonta is vigorously defending these laws in federal and state courts.
- Rhode v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 24-542, 20-55437; S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:18-cv-00802). The plaintiffs challenge California’s requirements for ammunition purchases, including background checks, under the Second Amendment, dormant Commerce Clause, and preemption doctrine. Following New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (Bruen), the district court permanently enjoined these requirements. The Attorney General has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Chavez v. Bonta (formerly Jones v. Bonta) (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 20-56174; S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:19-cv-01226). The plaintiffs bring a Second Amendment challenge to Penal Code section 27510, which prohibits the commercial sale or transfer of centerfire, semiautomatic rifles to individuals under 21 years of age and requires anyone between 18-20 years of age to obtain a hunting license prior to acquiring any long gun. The case was remanded from the Ninth Circuit after Bruen and the district court denied plaintiffs’ renewed motion for a preliminary injunction. The parties’ motions for summary judgment are pending before the district court.
- California Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:23-cv-10169). The plaintiffs challenge under the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions certain requirements to obtain a concealed carry license, including the residency requirement and authorization for an issuing authority to require a psychological assessment. The district court granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Attorney General continues to defend the law before the district court.
- Roe #1 v. United States (E.D. Cal., Case No. 1:19-cv-00270). The plaintiff challenges the federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)) that prohibits individuals who have been adjudicated as a “mental defective” or who have been committed to a mental institution from possessing firearms or ammunition. The Attorney General is named as a defendant because the Bureau of Firearms operates the background check system that firearms dealers use to determine whether a person can purchase a firearm. The Attorney General is defending this law before the district court.
- Regina v. The State of California (California Court of Appeal, Second Dist., Case No. B316404; Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 21STCV09546). 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 argued that the law violates the Second Amendment. The Attorney General successfully defended the law. The trial court held that the law did not violate the Second Amendment, which was affirmed on appeal.
- Wallingford v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 21-56292; C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:21-cv-01412). This is an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to provisions in restraining orders that prohibit the plaintiffs from possessing firearms and ammunition. The Attorney General successfully defended this law. The district court granted the State’s motion to dismiss. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the case for mootness.
- Abrera v. Newsom (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-16897; E.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-01162). The plaintiff alleges constitutional challenges to California’s: (1) assault weapons law; (2) restrictions on semiautomatic handguns; (3) prohibitions on the sale or purchase of firearms precursor parts; (4) 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 State continues to defend these laws in the district court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s appeal on a separate issue related to a statute providing attorney’s fees for the prevailing party in certain firearms-related lawsuits.
- Brinson v. Garland (N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:22-cv-09076). The plaintiff claims that federal law prohibiting individuals convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence from possessing a firearm does not apply to him and is unconstitutional. The plaintiff asserts three claims: (1) 18 U.S.C. section 925A for erroneous denial of a firearm, (2) Second Amendment, and (3) Equal Protection. The Attorney General is named as a defendant because the Bureau of Firearms operates the relevant background check system. The parties stipulated to dismiss the Attorney General from this lawsuit.
- Brownstein v. Orange County Sheriff’s Department (C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:24-cv-00970). Plaintiff alleges that the denial of his Concealed Carry Weapon license application based on Penal Code section 26202, subdivision (a)(3) (subject to restraining or protective order, or other specified order, within 5 years), amounts to constitutional violations. The Attorney General is defending the law before the district court.
- Hoffman v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:24-cv-00664). Out-of-state residents challenge the constitutionality of California’s prohibition on concealed carry by non-residents. The plaintiffs claim that the ban violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The Attorney General is defending the law before the district court.
- Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55805; S.D. Cal. No., Case 3:17-cv-01017). The plaintiffs bring 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). The district court entered summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction. The Attorney General is appealing the decision before the Ninth Circuit.
- Miller v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 23-2979, 21-55608; S.D. Cal., Case Nos. 3:22-cv-01446, 3:19-cv-1537). The plaintiffs challenge under the Second Amendment California’s ban on the manufacture, sale, or possession of assault weapons under California’s Assault Weapons Control Act (Penal Code section 30515). The district court held that portions of the Act violated the Second Amendment and entered a permanent injunction. The Attorney General obtained an administrative stay of the injunction from the Ninth Circuit so that the law can be enforced while the appeal is pending. The appeal is on hold until Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55805) is decided.
- Rupp v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 24-2583, 19-56004; C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:17-cv-00746). The plaintiffs challenge California’s restrictions on semiautomatic rifles that qualify as assault weapons under Penal Code sections 30510 and 30515 under the Second Amendment, Due Process Clause, and Takings Clause. The district court granted the Attorney General’s motion for summary judgment, upholding the law under the Second Amendment. The Attorney General is continuing to defend the law before the Ninth Circuit. The appeal is on hold until Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55805) is decided.
- Wiese v. Bonta (E.D. Cal., Case No. 17-cv-00903). The plaintiffs in this case bring Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause challenges to California’s restrictions on large-capacity magazines. The plaintiffs also argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague. The case is on hold until Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55805) is decided.
- Renna v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55367; S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:20-cv-02190); Boland v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-55276; C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:22-cv-01421). In Renna and in Boland, the plaintiffs bring Second Amendment challenges to California’s Unsafe Handgun Act (UHA), which requires the Department of Justice to publish and maintain a roster of handguns that may be commercially sold in California and requires that new handguns pass safety testing (drop testing and firing testing) and have certain public safety features (e.g., a chamber load indicator and a magazine disconnect mechanism) in order to be placed on the roster. In both cases, the district courts issued preliminary injunctions that, when in effect, prohibited the Attorney General from enforcing the requirements that new semiautomatic pistols have a chamber load indicator, magazine disconnect mechanism, and microstamping before they could be added to the roster for commercial sale in California. (Senate Bill 452 removed the microstamping requirement from the UHA, effective January 1, 2024.) The Renna district court also enjoined the mandate that each newly added, compliant semiautomatic pistol requires removal of three “grandfathered” semiautomatic pistols from the roster of handguns, and denied a preliminary injunction as to the other challenged provisions of the UHA. The preliminary injunctions as to the chamber load indicator and magazine disconnect mechanism requirements are stayed pending appeal, meaning the Attorney General may enforce those requirements for the time being. The Attorney General is continuing to defend the law before the Ninth Circuit.
- Fouts v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case Nos. 24-1039, 21-56039; S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:19-cv-01662). The plaintiffs challenge California’s restrictions on the manufacture, sale, and possession of any weapon of the kind commonly known as a “billy.” For example, under California law, police batons qualify as “billies.” Following Bruen, the district court ruled in the plaintiffs favor, holding that the restriction was unconstitutional and entering a permanent injunction, prohibiting the Attorney General from enforcing the law. The Attorney General has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
- Cupp v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 21-16809; E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:16-cv-00523). The plaintiff brings a Second Amendment challenge to several of California’s firearms laws, including the Law Enforcement Release Program, which applies to individuals seeking the return of firearms seized by law enforcement, and California’s prohibition on exotic weapons such as “slungshots” (which are distinct from slingshots). Following Bruen, the Attorney General successfully moved to dismiss the action and the law is in effect. Plaintiff has since amended his complaint, and the Attorney General continues to defend the law before the district court.
- Abrera v. Newsom (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-16897; E.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-01162). The plaintiff alleges constitutional challenges to California’s: (1) assault weapons law; (2) limitations on semiautomatic handguns; (3) prohibitions on the sale or purchase of firearms precursor parts; (4) 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 State continues to defend these laws in the district court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s appeal on a separate issue related to a statute providing attorney’s fees for the prevailing party in certain firearms-related lawsuits.
- State of California v. United States Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms & Explosives (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-2701; N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:20-cv-06761). California and Gifford’s Law Center brought an Administrative Procedures Act challenge against a Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) final rule excluding certain partially complete frames and receivers from the definition of a “firearm.” Those parts are often used in the manufacturing of so-called “ghost guns.” The State successfully moved for summary judgment and is continuing to defend the law before the Ninth Circuit.
- Sanchez v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:24-cv-767). The plaintiff brings a Second Amendment challenge to Penal Code section 33410, which prohibits possession of firearm silencers. The Attorney General is defending this law before the district court.
- Nichols v. Newsom (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 14-55873; C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:11-cv-09916); Baird v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-15016; E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:19-cv-617). California laws prohibit residents from openly carrying loaded firearms in public in most circumstances. The plaintiffs challenge these restrictions under the Second Amendment. In Nichols, the Attorney General continues to defend the law in the district court since the remand from the Ninth Circuit following New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (Bruen). In Baird, the district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment, and the Attorney General continues to defend the law before the Ninth Circuit.
- Floyd v. San Jose Police Dept. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-16243; N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:22-cv-751). The plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of California Penal Code sections 25610 and 25850, which prohibit the public carrying of loaded firearms. The plaintiff’s injunctive relief claims are stayed until the completion of his criminal proceedings. The Attorney General continues to defend the law in the district court.
- Carralero v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-4354; C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:23-cv-01798); May v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-4356; C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:23-cv-01696). Carralero and May are consolidated cases that present Second Amendment challenges to Senate Bill (SB) 2—California’s response to Bruen—which designates certain locations as “sensitive places” where firearms cannot be carried, including public transportation, playgrounds, parks, libraries, stadiums, museums, zoos, places of worship, and parking lots of courthouses, jails, and preschools. The cases also concern SB 2’s prohibition on the carrying of firearms on private property without consent. The district court entered preliminary injunctions enjoining the challenged provisions and the Attorney General continues to defend the laws in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Markowitz v. City of Burbank (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 23STCV05642). The plaintiff alleges a Second Amendment challenge to California’s law prohibiting the public carrying of loaded firearms. The case is stayed until October 14, 2024, given the related criminal case.
- Zeleny v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-15870; N.D. Cal., Case No. 3:17-cv-07357). This is an as-applied challenge to California’s prohibition on “open-carry,” alleging constitutional violations. The district court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment in July 2021. The plaintiffs appealed and the Attorney General continues to defend the law before the Ninth Circuit.
- Nguyen v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 24-2036; S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:20-cv-02470). The plaintiff alleges that California’s law limiting individuals to purchasing one firearm every 30 days violates the Second Amendment. The district court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The Attorney General continues to defend the law before the Ninth Circuit.
- Richards v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:23-cv-793). The plaintiffs claim that California’s 10-day waiting period to take possession of a firearm after sale or transfer violates the Second Amendment. The Attorney General is defending the law before the district court.
- Altbaum v. State of California (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2024-00003904); Jaymes v. Maduros (San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 37-2024-00031147). The plaintiffs challenge Assembly Bill 28, the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act, claiming that its 11% excise tax on the retail sale of firearms violates the Second Amendment. The State filed a demurrer in Altbaum, which is pending before the superior court. The Attorney General is defending the law before the superior court in both cases.
- B & L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom (Assembly Bill 893) (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55431; S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:21-cv-01718); B & L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom (Senate Bills 915 and 264) (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-3793; C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:22-cv-01518). The challenged bills prohibit the sale of firearms and ammunition on state property: Senate Bill 915 applies to all state property, Assembly Bill 893 applies to the Del Mar Fairgrounds in the County of San Diego, and Senate Bill 264 applies to OC Fair and Event Center in the County of Orange. The plaintiffs challenge the laws under the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and Equal Protection Clause. In the AB 893 case, the State successfully moved to dismiss the case and the Ninth Circuit affirmed the decision. In the SB 915 and SB 264 case, the district court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, but the State successfully sought to have the Ninth Circuit vacate the preliminary injunction. The State will continue to defend the law in any further proceedings.
- Junior Sports Magazines Inc. v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-56090; C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:22-cv-004663); Safari Club International v. Bonta (formerly So Cal Top Guns v. Bonta) (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-15199; E.D. Cal., Case No. 2:22-cv-01395). In these related cases, the plaintiffs challenge California Business and Professions Code section 22949.80, which among other things, 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 equal protection rights. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (to prohibit the Attorney General from defending the law) but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed the denial. The Attorney General continues to defend this law in any further proceedings.
- National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:23-cv-0945). The plaintiffs challenge under the Second Amendment and other constitutional provisions the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act’s (Assembly Bill 1594) imposition of uniform standards of conduct for firearm industry members. The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction, and the district court enjoined the section of the law that restricts “abnormally dangerous” firearms. The rest of the law remains in effect. The Attorney General continues to defend the law before the district court.
- Richards v. Newsom (C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:23-cv-02413). The plaintiffs raise constitutional claims against California Penal Code section 26806, which among other things requires firearms dealers to use a video-audio surveillance system. The Attorney General successfully opposed the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction and continues to defend the law before the district court.
- Franklin Armory, Inc. v. California Department of Justice (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCP01747). The plaintiffs allege that the electronic system that the California Department of Justice utilizes to 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. The plaintiffs allege a variety of claims, including tort claims. The Attorney General is continuing to defend this law in the superior court.
- Briseno v. Bonta (C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:21-cv-09018). The Complaint brings Second Amendment, substantive due process, and procedural due process challenges, 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. The district court stayed the case pending the resolution of the related state court case, Franklin Armory, Inc. v. California Department of Justice (Los Angeles Superior Court, Case No. 20STCP01747).
- Doe v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55133; S.D. Cal., Case No. 3:22-cv-00010); Barba v. Bonta (formerly Brandeis v. Bonta) (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Case No. D081194; San Diego Superior Court, Case No. 202200003676). In Doe v. Bonta, the plaintiffs challenge on Second Amendment grounds (among others) California Penal Code sections 11106(d) and 30352(b)(1), which require the Attorney General to share certain firearms data with the California Firearm Violence Research Center at UC Davis and allows the Attorney General to share this information with other gun violence researchers. The district court dismissed the Complaint, and the plaintiffs appealed. The Attorney General is defending the ruling in the Ninth Circuit. In Barba v. Bonta, the plaintiffs challenge the law on state privacy grounds. The superior court preliminarily enjoined the law, but the Court of Appeal reversed. The Attorney General is defending the law before the superior court.
- Defense Distributed v. Bonta (C.D. Cal., Case No. 2:22-cv-06200). The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Assembly Bill 1621 (prohibition from self-manufacturing firearms) and Senate Bill 1327 (creating private cause of action against distributors of illegal assault weapons and “ghost guns”). The Attorney General successfully opposed the motion for preliminary injunction and the matter has been dismissed.
