The firearm background check process in California is a careful, multi-step system designed to make sure only people who are legally allowed to own or possess guns can buy them. It’s run by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) through their Bureau of Firearms (BOF), specifically the Background Clearance Unit (BCU). This process is triggered whenever someone tries to buy…read more →
Introduction In a significant development for Second Amendment jurisprudence, the U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Wolford v. Lopez, agreeing to review a challenge to Hawaii’s restrictive concealed carry laws. The case, docketed as No. 24-1046, centers on whether states can presumptively ban licensed handgun carriers from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public—such as stores, restaurants,…read more →
The United States has strict federal regulations governing firearm possession, particularly for nonimmigrant aliens—individuals admitted to the U.S. on temporary, nonimmigrant visas such as tourist (B-2), student (F-1), or work (H-1B) visas. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B), nonimmigrant aliens are generally prohibited from shipping, transporting, receiving, or possessing firearms or ammunition. This restriction has significant implications for gun ranges, firearm retailers,…read more →
In California, purchasing a firearm involves a rigorous background check process designed to ensure public safety while adhering to state and federal laws. Governed primarily by California Penal Code Section 28220, the Department of Justice (DOJ) conducts these checks to determine if a prospective buyer is prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. This article explores the key databases involved,…read more →
Purchasing a firearm in California requires passing a background check through the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process, managed by the state’s Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Firearms. This system verifies a buyer’s eligibility based on state and federal laws, cross-referencing criminal records, mental health flags, and other prohibitions. While many transactions are approved quickly, others can result in…read more →
The National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 and the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 form the backbone of federal firearms regulation in the United States. While the GCA focuses on general firearm commerce and prohibits certain individuals from possessing guns, the NFA imposes stricter controls on specific “Title II” items like suppressors, short-barreled rifles, machine guns, and destructive devices…read more →
California has some of the strictest firearm laws in the United States, with age requirements that generally align with or exceed federal minimums. These laws are governed by the California Penal Code and enforced by the California Department of Justice (DOJ). Below, I’ll break down the key age restrictions for purchasing different types of firearms from licensed dealers (which is…read more →
On August 29, 2025, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) issued an open letter that marks a pivotal moment for firearm enthusiasts, manufacturers, and Second Amendment advocates. The letter officially rescinds the ATF’s 2019 classification of Franklin Armory’s Reformation and Antithesis firearms, following a legal settlement with the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition and Franklin Armory. This decision…read more →
In California, firearm ownership and possession are strictly regulated, especially for individuals who become prohibited from owning guns due to legal reasons. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) provides a specific form to help such individuals comply with the law: the General Notice of Firearm Prohibition and Power of Attorney for Firearms Relinquishment, Sale, or Transfer for Storage, commonly referred…read more →
Currently, California has a 10-day waiting period on the delivery of firearms to the purchaser (Pen. Code §§ 26815(a) & 27540(a)). This applies to private party transfers through licensed dealers (Pen. Code § 27545), imposing the same delay. A review of the legislative history reveals that this 10-day waiting period is neither long-standing nor consistent in application. The legislature’s primary intent was to provide law enforcement time for background checks, driven by manual processes. The “cooling-off” intent to deter impulsive violence emerged only in the 1990s, falsely retroactively attributed via People v. Bickston (1979). With modern instant-check systems, these rationales are outdated.