California Firearms Law Tracker
California has among the strictest firearms regulations in the nation, with new laws taking effect in 2026 that expand safe storage requirements, restrict handgun purchases, and narrow the approved handgun roster. Meanwhile, multiple Second Amendment challenges are working through the courts that could reshape the legal landscape.
California Firearms Law Tracker
Current laws, active court challenges, and upcoming changes for 2026.
SB 53: Mandatory Safe Storage for All Gun Owners
Effective: January 1, 2026
Requires all California gun owners to securely store firearms in a certified firearm safety device or gun safe when not being carried or readily controlled. Eliminates the previous exemption for single-person households, extending safe storage requirements universally. Antique firearms and permanently inoperable firearms are exempt.
Penalties: First and second violations are infractions with fines up to $500. Third or subsequent violations are misdemeanors.
PC 25135AB 1127: Cruciform Trigger Bar Pistol Ban (Glock Ban)
Effective: July 1, 2026
Prohibits the sale and transfer of semiautomatic pistols with cruciform trigger bars, classified as machinegun-convertible pistols. Affects all Glock models and Glock-pattern clones such as Shadow Systems. Phase 1 (Jan 1, 2026) restricts dealer acquisition of new inventory. Phase 2 (July 1, 2026) bans all new sales to civilians. Law enforcement and military are exempt.
Penalties: Violation is a misdemeanor for dealers. Unlawful transfer or sale subject to existing firearms trafficking penalties under PC 27500.
PC 32700-32710AB 1078: Three-Firearm Purchase Limit Per 30 Days
Effective: April 1, 2026
Limits all firearm purchases to three per 30-day period, replacing the previous one-handgun-per-30-days restriction. Expands the limit to cover all firearm types including rifles and shotguns. If the federal injunction on the one-gun limit (Nguyen v. Bonta) is reversed on appeal, the limit reverts to one firearm per 30 days. Also modifies CCW licensing disqualification criteria.
Penalties: Dealers prohibited from completing transfer. DOJ will reject DROS applications exceeding the limit. Violation by dealer is grounds for license revocation.
PC 27535AB 1263: Online Firearm Precursor Parts ID Verification
Effective: January 1, 2026
Requires age and identity verification using government-issued photo ID for all online sales of firearm precursor parts, tools, and part sets designed for manufacturing firearms. Prohibits distribution of CAD, CNC, and 3D printer files that can produce firearms, barrels, or large-capacity magazines. Websites hosting such files are subject to civil penalties and private lawsuits.
Penalties: Civil penalties for non-compliant retailers. Private right of action for distribution of digital manufacturing files. Criminal penalties for sale without ID verification.
PC 29180-29184SB 704: Barrel Sales Through FFL Only
Effective: January 1, 2026
Requires all standalone firearm barrel sales to go through a California-licensed FFL dealer. Direct-to-consumer shipping of barrels into California is prohibited. Phase 1 (Jan 1, 2026) requires barrels be shipped to an FFL for pickup. Phase 2 (July 1, 2027) adds DOJ background check, in-person appearance, and electronic reporting of purchaser and barrel details.
Penalties: Unlawful transfer of a firearm barrel without FFL processing. Dealers face license suspension or revocation for non-compliance with reporting requirements.
PC 30400-30405AB 3067: Insurance Firearms Ownership Disclosure
Effective: January 1, 2026
Requires insurance companies to include questions about firearms ownership and storage on homeowners and renters insurance applications. Insurers must ask about the number of firearms in the household, how they are stored, and whether firearms are kept in vehicles on the property. Insurers must report anonymized aggregate data annually to the California Department of Insurance and the Legislature.
Penalties: Non-compliant insurers subject to regulatory action by the California Department of Insurance. No direct penalties for policyholders who decline to answer.
Insurance Code 10102.5SB 23: Assault Weapons Ban (AWCA)
Effective: January 1, 2000
Prohibits the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of assault weapons as defined under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 and subsequent amendments. Covers specific firearms by name and by features such as detachable magazines with pistol grips on semiautomatic rifles. Previously registered assault weapons may be retained but cannot be transferred. Currently challenged in Miller v. Bonta and Rupp v. Bonta.
Penalties: Possession of an unregistered assault weapon is a felony punishable by up to 8 years in state prison under PC 30605. Transport violations under PC 30600.
PC 30500-30530SB 1446: Large-Capacity Magazine Ban
Effective: July 1, 2017
Prohibits the possession, sale, manufacture, import, and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Previously grandfathered magazines were required to be surrendered, destroyed, or removed from the state. The law is currently being challenged in Duncan v. Bonta, which is pending a certiorari decision at the U.S. Supreme Court as of early 2026.
Penalties: First offense is an infraction or misdemeanor. Subsequent offenses are misdemeanors punishable by up to one year in county jail and fines up to $1,000. PC 32390.
PC 32310-32390AB 1621: Ghost Gun Serialization Requirements
Effective: January 1, 2023
Requires all privately manufactured firearms (ghost guns) to have a unique serial number obtained from the California DOJ before assembly. Prohibits possession, purchase, sale, or transfer of unserialized firearms or unfinished firearm precursor parts without a DOJ-issued serial number. Expands the definition of firearm precursor parts to include unfinished frames and receivers at any stage of completion.
Penalties: Possession of an unserialized firearm is a misdemeanor. Manufacturing without a serial number is a misdemeanor for first offense, potential felony for subsequent offenses. PC 29180-29184.
PC 29180-29184AB 2847: Handgun Roster and Microstamping Requirement
Effective: January 1, 2001
Maintains a roster of certified handguns approved for retail sale in California. Requires new handgun models to incorporate microstamping technology that imprints a unique identifier on cartridge cases when fired. The roster has been steadily shrinking as manufacturers cannot meet the microstamping requirement, dropping from over 900 models to under 250. AB 2847 (2020) removed the three-for-one removal requirement but kept microstamping.
Penalties: Dealers who sell off-roster handguns face felony charges under PC 32000. Private party transfers and law enforcement are exempt.
PC 31900-32110AB 202: 10-Day Waiting Period
Effective: January 1, 1996
Requires a mandatory 10-day waiting period between the purchase and delivery of all firearms. The waiting period applies to all transactions processed through a licensed dealer, including private party transfers. No exceptions for current firearm owners or CCW holders. Intended as a cooling-off period to prevent impulsive acts of violence.
Penalties: Dealers who deliver firearms before the waiting period expires face misdemeanor charges and license revocation. PC 26815.
PC 26815SB 880: Universal Background Checks (DROS)
Effective: January 1, 2014
Requires background checks through the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) system for all firearm transfers, including private party sales, gifts, and loans exceeding 30 days. The California DOJ conducts checks against state and federal databases. A DROS fee of $37.19 is charged per transaction. No exceptions for transfers between family members except parent-child and grandparent-grandchild infrequent transfers.
Penalties: Transferring a firearm without a background check is a misdemeanor under PC 27545, punishable by up to one year in county jail. Dealers face license revocation.
PC 28220SB 61: One-Handgun-Per-30-Days Limit
Effective: July 1, 2020
Restricts the purchase of handguns and semiautomatic centerfire rifles to one per 30-day period. Currently enjoined by federal court order in Nguyen v. Bonta, where the Ninth Circuit ruled the restriction unconstitutional. Being superseded by AB 1078's three-firearm limit effective April 1, 2026, which applies to all firearm types. If the Nguyen injunction is reversed, AB 1078 reverts this limit to one firearm per 30 days.
Penalties: DOJ rejects DROS applications that exceed the limit. Dealers who complete such transactions face license suspension.
PC 27535Baird v. Bonta
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issue: Whether California's ban on open carry of firearms in counties with populations exceeding 200,000 (PC 26350) violates the Second Amendment right to bear arms in public.
On January 2, 2026, a divided Ninth Circuit panel struck down California's urban open carry ban as unconstitutional under the Bruen framework. If the en banc petition is denied, open carry could become legal in California's major counties. This is the most immediately impactful 2A case in the state.
Last Action: AG Bonta filed petition for rehearing en banc after three-judge panel ruled the open carry ban unconstitutional. Opposing parties ordered to file responses.
February 15, 2026
Next: Decision on en banc rehearing petition expected within 2-6 months. If granted, the panel decision is vacated and the case is re-argued before an 11-judge en banc panel.
Duncan v. Bonta
U.S. Supreme Court (certiorari pending)
Issue: Whether California's ban on possession of large-capacity magazines (over 10 rounds) violates the Second Amendment, and whether the ban constitutes an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment.
The longest-running California magazine ban challenge. The en banc Ninth Circuit upheld the ban, ruling magazines are not protected arms. SCOTUS has repeatedly relisted without action, signaling possible internal divisions. A grant of certiorari would have nationwide implications for magazine capacity laws in multiple states.
Last Action: Petition for certiorari filed August 15, 2025. Case repeatedly relisted for SCOTUS conference without a grant or denial as of February 2026.
February 24, 2026
Next: SCOTUS to either grant certiorari, deny the petition, or continue relisting. If granted, oral arguments would likely occur in the October 2026 term.
Miller v. Bonta
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issue: Whether California's assault weapons ban under the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act (PC 30500-30530) violates the Second Amendment under the Bruen historical tradition test.
Judge Benitez ruled California's assault weapons ban unconstitutional twice, comparing AR-15s to Swiss Army knives in his initial 2021 ruling. The Ninth Circuit stayed the injunction, keeping the ban in effect during appeal. The case's outcome depends heavily on Duncan v. Bonta and could invalidate the entire California AWB.
Last Action: Ninth Circuit holding case in abeyance pending resolution of Duncan v. Bonta. District court twice ruled the AWB unconstitutional (2021 and 2023). Stay remains in effect.
June 15, 2025
Next: Ninth Circuit to rule after Duncan v. Bonta is resolved. If Duncan reaches SCOTUS, this case may be further delayed.
Rupp v. Bonta
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issue: Whether California's restrictions on semiautomatic rifles classified as assault weapons under PC 30510 and 30515 violate the Second Amendment.
A parallel challenge to California's assault weapons ban from the Central District. Together with Miller v. Bonta, these cases form a two-front attack on the AWB. The Ninth Circuit is waiting for the Duncan framework before deciding both AWB challenges, creating a bottleneck where one case controls the fate of several.
Last Action: Ninth Circuit granted administrative stay of district court injunction. Appeal held in abeyance pending Duncan v. Bonta resolution.
April 20, 2025
Next: Decision deferred until after Duncan v. Bonta is resolved at either the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court level.
Rhode v. Bonta
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (en banc)
Issue: Whether California's ammunition background check requirement and anti-importation laws violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
A three-judge panel permanently enjoined California's ammunition background check laws in July 2025, but the state obtained en banc review. With the U.S. DOJ and 25 state attorneys general filing amicus briefs against California, this case has become a national referendum on ammunition regulation under Bruen.
Last Action: Ninth Circuit granted en banc rehearing on December 1, 2025. En banc oral arguments scheduled for the week of March 23, 2026. U.S. DOJ and 25 states filed amicus briefs supporting the challenge.
January 6, 2026
Next: En banc oral arguments the week of March 23, 2026. Decision expected 6-12 months after argument.
Nguyen v. Bonta
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Issue: Whether California's one-gun-per-30-days purchase restriction violates the Second Amendment right to acquire and possess multiple firearms.
A landmark ruling and the first permanent Second Amendment invalidation of a California firearms law by the Ninth Circuit. The decision applies the Bruen framework to find no historical tradition supporting purchase quantity limits. California responded legislatively with AB 1078, which sets a three-gun limit but includes a reversion clause if the Nguyen injunction is ever reversed.
Last Action: Ninth Circuit issued mandate striking down California's one-gun-a-month law as unconstitutional, affirming the district court injunction. This is the first time the Ninth Circuit has permanently struck down a law on Second Amendment grounds.
August 15, 2025
Next: State may petition for SCOTUS review. Meanwhile, AB 1078 takes effect April 1, 2026, replacing the struck-down one-gun limit with a three-gun limit.