California

California’s Prohibition on Firearm Possession and Control for Individuals Under 21: Implications for Dealers, Employees, and Customers

California’s Prohibition on Firearm Possession and Control for Individuals Under 21: Implications for Dealers, Employees, and Customers

In California, firearm regulations extend far beyond mere sales and transfers, encompassing even temporary possession or control of guns. This is particularly relevant for licensed firearms dealers employing or interacting with individuals under 21 years old, whether as customers browsing inventory or as employees handling stock. The state’s laws are stricter than federal baselines, creating a complex landscape for compliance….read more →

30 Oct, 2025
The Legislative History of California’s Current 10-Day Waiting Period on the Delivery of Firearms

The Legislative History of California’s Current 10-Day Waiting Period on the Delivery of Firearms

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 With modern instant-check systems, these rationales are outdated.

20 Aug, 2025
The Ninth Circuit’s Second Amendment Resistance: From Silveira to Duncan’s Procedural Maneuvers

The Ninth Circuit’s Second Amendment Resistance: From Silveira to Duncan’s Procedural Maneuvers

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has a well-documented history of resistance to the Second Amendment’s individual rights framework, a pattern that began with Silveira v. Lockyer (2002) and persists despite Supreme Court interventions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). This resistance…read more →

11 Aug, 2025
Supreme Court Passes on Maryland AR-15 Ban: What It Means for California Gun Owners

Supreme Court Passes on Maryland AR-15 Ban: What It Means for California Gun Owners

By The Davis Law Firm, www.calgunlawyers.com On a quiet June morning in 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court sent ripples through the firearms community by declining to hear Snope v. Brown, a case challenging Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles. For California gun owners, who face some of the nation’s strictest firearms laws, this decision—or lack thereof—carries weight. At The Davis Law…read more →

12 Jun, 2025

Restoring Firearm Rights in California: The Impact of Linton v. Bonta and AB 1078

By Jason Davis, The Davis Law Firm, www.calgunlawyers.com California’s stringent firearm laws have long posed challenges for individuals seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights, particularly those with prior convictions. The California Department of Justice (DOJ) has historically enforced lifetime firearm bans for individuals with felony or domestic violence convictions, often ignoring out-of-state relief such as expungements or pardons. However,…read more →

12 May, 2025

Flawed Foundations: How Duncan v. Bonta Undermines Bruen and Second Amendment Protections

In Duncan v. Bonta (2025), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld California’s ban on large-capacity magazines (LCMs), reversing a district court’s ruling that the law violated the Second Amendment. The case, brought by plaintiffs including Virginia Duncan and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, challenged California Penal Code § 32310(c), which prohibits possession of magazines holding…read more →

18 Apr, 2025

Andre Nesbit v. FF Firearms (Frivolous Litigation Against Firearm Dealers)

Key Points Case Overview In the case of Andre Nesbit v. FF Firearms, Nesbit claimed FF Firearms committed fraud by misrepresenting the firearm pickup period and refusing a refund. The trial court dismissed the claim for lacking detail, and the court of appeals affirmed this decision on February 11, 2025, noting Nesbit failed to specify who made the misrepresentations and…read more →

30 Mar, 2025
Torrance Quietly Repeals Restrictive Gun Laws

Torrance Quietly Repeals Restrictive Gun Laws

Sometimes, being vindicated takes time, risk, and provocation.  Such is the case with Mindy Costa, who’s actions in fighting vexatious laws quietly liberated the residential gun owners of Torrance and those transporting firearms through the city from a little known municipal code that made most firearm owners within the city and those traveling through the city with firearms potential misdemeanants –…read more →

4 Sep, 2014
Top 25 Interesting Items From The Waiting Period Case

Top 25 Interesting Items From The Waiting Period Case

UPDATE JANUARY 12, 2015:  More Waiting Ahead!!!!! Today the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the District Court’s ruling that struck the 10 day waiting period for most firearm purchasers. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling was brief: “Appellant’s motion to stay the district court’s August 25, 2014 order pending appeal is granted. See Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987).”…read more →

29 Aug, 2014
12