Blog

Got an “Undetermined” Status on Your California Firearm Purchase? Here’s What It Means and What to Do to Fix It

Got an “Undetermined” Status on Your California Firearm Purchase? Here’s What It Means and What to Do to Fix It

This status is frustratingly common. Many people want to know two things right away: Here’s a straightforward explanation. What “Undetermined” Status Actually Means Under California law, the Department of Justice can delay a firearm transaction for up to 30 days when they cannot immediately confirm your eligibility to possess firearms. If the 30-day period expires and the DOJ still cannot…read more →

July 1, 2026 Alert: Key California Firearms Law Changes Every Gun Owner and Dealer Needs to Know

July 1, 2026 Alert: Key California Firearms Law Changes Every Gun Owner and Dealer Needs to Know

The Davis Law Firm | California Firearms Lawyer Several important changes to California firearms law take effect on July 1, 2026. While none of these create an immediate ban on possession for law-abiding gun owners, they impose new restrictions on dealers, expand reporting obligations, and increase compliance requirements. If you are a firearms dealer, FFL holder, collector, or someone who…read more →

Duncan v. Bonta on the Brink of Breaking Supreme Court History: 19 Relists and Counting — Why This Is Surprisingly Good News for Gun Owners

As of June 1, 2026, Duncan v. Bonta (No. 25-198) — the leading challenge to California’s ban on large-capacity magazines — has now been distributed for Supreme Court conference a remarkable 19 times. That puts the case just a few steps away from shattering the modern record for the most relists on a cert petition. And for once, setting a…read more →

Can I Legally Carry A Firearm In California — California CCW

Can I Legally Carry A Firearm In California — California CCW

20 Questions Answered — Updated April 2026 CalGunLawyers.com — California Firearms Defense & Compliance This article answers the most frequently asked questions about carrying firearms in California as of April 2026. It covers everything from how to qualify for a CCW permit, to where you can and cannot carry, to what happens if your application is denied. Every answer cites…read more →

Law-Abiding California Gun Owners Reach $75,000 Settlement in Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Former State Park Ranger Jaycee Hollins

Law-Abiding California Gun Owners Reach $75,000 Settlement in Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit Against Former State Park Ranger Jaycee Hollins

Mission Viejo, CA – Two law-abiding California gun owners have reached a settlement in their federal civil rights lawsuit against former California State Park Ranger Jaycee Hollins (in her individual and official capacities). The defendant agreed to pay $75,000 to resolve the matter. According to the publicly filed complaint, the plaintiffs were detained by Ranger Hollins for approximately two hours…read more →

Why the DOJ’s 925(c) Firearms Relief Rule Is Taking Time — And Why That’s Normal

Why the DOJ’s 925(c) Firearms Relief Rule Is Taking Time — And Why That’s Normal

If you are a client, a potential client or you work with clients who lost federal firearm rights because of a past conviction, mental-health adjudication, or other disqualifier under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), you’ve probably been watching the Department of Justice’s new rule on relief from disabilities (18 U.S.C. § 925(c)). What the Rule Is About For decades, § 925(c)…read more →

Supreme Court’s Decision Today in Cox v. Sony Delivers Major Inadvertent Win for the Firearms Industry: Reinforcing Protections Against Secondary Liability for Third-Party Misconduct

Supreme Court’s Decision Today in Cox v. Sony Delivers Major Inadvertent Win for the Firearms Industry: Reinforcing Protections Against Secondary Liability for Third-Party Misconduct

By Jason Davis March 25, 2026 In a landmark ruling issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court in Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment (No. 24–171) slammed the door on expansive theories of secondary copyright liability for internet service providers (ISPs). The unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Thomas, holds that an ISP like Cox is not contributorily liable for its…read more →