(last updated April 3, 2023)
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.
- Nichols v. Newsom (C.D. Cal., Case No. 11-cv-09916). 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. Following the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022) (Bruen), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case to the federal district court for further proceedings. The Attorney General continues to defend the laws in the federal district court.
- Baird v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-15016; E.D. Cal., Case No. 19-cv-617). The plaintiffs challenge 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 law in the federal district court while that ruling is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Floyd v. San Jose Police Dept., et al. (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-16243; 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. The Attorney General is defending the federal district court's decision to stay the case before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Duncan v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 17-cv-01017). The 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 case was remanded to the federal district court, where the Attorney General is defending the law.
- Wiese v. Bonta (E.D. Cal., Case No. 17-cv-00903). The plaintiffs in this case have brought 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 Attorney General continues to defend the law in the federal district court.
- Rhode v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 18-cv-00802). The 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 allege that the law violates the Second Amendment, the 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. After Bruen was decided in June 2022, the Ninth Circuit vacated the preliminary injunction and remanded the case back to the federal district court. The Attorney General continues to defend the law in the federal district court.
- Rupp v. Bonta (C.D. Cal., Case No. 17-cv-00746). The 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 firearms configured with combat-oriented accessories or features. The Attorney General prevailed at the federal district court on summary judgment in July 2019 and the 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 continues to defend the Assault Weapons Control Act in the federal district court.
- Miller v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 19-cv-1537). 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 law in the federal district court.
- Fouts v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 19-cv-01662). The 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 plaintiffs appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, the case was remanded to the federal district court for further proceedings. The Attorney General continues to defend the law in the federal district court.
- Cupp v. Bonta (E.D. Cal., Case No. 16-cv-00523). 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 in the federal district court.
- 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. The Attorney General is defending the law in the federal district court.
- Boland v. Bonta (C.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-01421). The plaintiff brings a Second Amendment 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 the federal district 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 the federal district court.
- Jones v. Bonta (S.D. Cal., Case No. 19-cv-01226). 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. The Attorney General asked the full Ninth Circuit to reconsider this ruling, but following the Supreme Court's decision in Bruen, the case was remanded to the federal district court. The Attorney General continues to defend the law in the federal district court.
- 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 the federal district 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 (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-56090; C.D. Cal., Case No. 22-cv-004663). 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 federal district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented enforcement of the law. The federal district court case is stayed while that ruling is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Safari Club International, et al. v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-15199; 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. Plaintiffs claim that the statute violates their First Amendment free speech and assembly and their equal protection rights, and that the statute is unconstitutionally overbroad and vague. The federal district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented enforcement of the law. The Attorney General continues to defend the law in the federal district court while that ruling is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Abrera v. Newsom (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 22-16897; 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 continues to defend these laws in federal district court while the plaintiff challenges, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the denial of a preliminary injunction motion on a separate issue (a statute providing attorney's fees for the prevailing party in certain firearms-related lawsuits).
- Linton v. Becerra 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 the federal district 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 (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Case No. D081134). 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 with ten days. The Attorney General opposes this interpretation of the law. The superior court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, and the case is now on appeal in the California Court of Appeal.
- AB 173 Litigation: Doe v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 23-55133); Barba v. Bonta (California Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., Case No. D081194; 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. AB 173 clarifies the process by which the Department of Justice may provide certain researchers firearms information to facilitate research into firearm violence prevention policies. The plaintiffs in these cases 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. The state court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, temporarily preventing the Department of Justice from providing certain information to researchers, and that ruling is now on appeal in the California Court of Appeal. The federal district court granted the Attorney General's motion to dismiss the federal complaint in its entirety and the Attorney General defending that ruling in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom (S.D. Cal., Case No. 21-cv-01718). The plaintiffs challenge a state law prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition at the Del Mar Fairgrounds in San Diego. The plaintiffs challenge the law under the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and equal protection. The Attorney General is defending the law in the federal district court.
- SB 264 and SB 915 Litigation: B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom (C.D. Cal., Case No. 8:22-cv-01518). The plaintiffs challenge SB 915, which prohibits the sale of firearms, ammunition, and precursor parts on state property, and SB 264, which prohibits the same in the OC Fair and Event Center, in the County of Orange. The plaintiffs allege violations of the First Amendment, Second Amendment, and equal protection. The Attorney General is defending these laws in the federal district court.
