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, the federal court decision in Linton v. Bonta and the recent introduction of Assembly Bill 1078 (AB 1078) mark significant shifts in this landscape. This article summarizes the relevant law, critiques the DOJ’s unlawful approach, analyzes the Linton decision and AB 1078, identifies who benefits from these developments, explains why the DOJ can act without legislation, and outlines how The Davis Law Firm can assist.
California and federal law impose lifetime firearm possession bans for individuals convicted of certain offenses, particularly felonies and domestic violence crimes. Under California Penal Code § 29800(a)(1), anyone convicted of a felony under U.S., California, or out-of-state law is prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. Similarly, Penal Code § 29805 extends this ban to misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, mirroring the federal prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). These bans apply to crimes explicitly labeled as domestic violence and those involving violence against qualifying domestic partners (e.g., spouses or cohabitants).
Neither California nor federal law recognizes California 6expungements as restoring firearm rights for these convictions. California’s expungement statute, Penal Code § 1203.4, explicitly states it does not lift firearm prohibitions, and federal law (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(33)(B)(ii)) requires an expungement or pardon to expressly restore firearm rights. See Enos v. Holder, No. 2:10-cv-2911, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111113, at *11 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 27, 2011). California also rejects out-of-state expungements, requiring a gubernatorial pardon that explicitly restores firearm rights to lift the ban. Frawley, 82 Cal. App. 4th at 788–89. Out-of-state pardons are recognized if they expressly restore firearm rights, aligning with federal precedent. See Beecham v. United States, 511 U.S. 368, 374 (1994).
Historically, the DOJ has enforced Penal Code § 29800 by prohibiting firearm possession for individuals with out-of-state felony convictions, even if those convictions were vacated, set aside, expunged, or had firearm rights restored by the convicting jurisdiction. The DOJ’s policy, as documented in Linton v. Bonta, only allowed relief for convictions reduced to misdemeanors (excluding domestic violence convictions) or pardons explicitly restoring firearm rights, ignoring other forms of out-of-state relief. Linton v. Bonta, No. 18-cv-07653-JD, slip op. at 9 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2024) (Dkt. No. 62-6, Ex. A). This approach was applied uniformly, regardless of the conviction’s nature or the individual’s rehabilitation.
This policy was unlawful as applied to individuals with vacated nonviolent felony convictions, as it violated their Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Bruen established a two-step test for Second Amendment challenges: (1) determine if the individual is part of “the people” and the conduct is protected, and (2) require the government to show the restriction aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Id. at 24. The DOJ’s categorical denial of firearm rights, without historical justification, failed this test for nonviolent, vacated convictions. See Range v. Att’y Gen., 69 F.4th 96, 103 (3d Cir. 2023) (rejecting categorical exclusion of nonviolent felons).
In Linton v. Bonta, three plaintiffs—Chad Linton, Paul McKinley Stewart, and Kendall Jones—challenged the DOJ’s enforcement of Penal Code § 29800. Each had nonviolent felony convictions from other states (e.g., evading police, burglary, credit card fraud) that were vacated or set aside, with firearm rights restored by the convicting jurisdictions. Linton, slip op. at 2–6. Despite their clean records and, in Jones’s case, a 30-year career as a California correctional officer and firearms instructor, the DOJ denied them firearm possession based on the original convictions. Id. at 3–6.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on their as-applied Second Amendment claim. Applying Bruen, the court found:
The court ruled the DOJ’s policy unconstitutional as applied, ordering the parties to propose a remedy, such as an injunction, to ensure compliance. Id. at 21. This decision directly rebuked the DOJ’s refusal to honor out-of-state relief, setting a precedent for individuals in similar circumstances.
Introduced in 2025, AB 1078 amends several Penal Code sections, including § 29800, to align California’s firearm laws with Bruen, Linton, and other rulings. See Assemb. B. 1078, 2025–26 Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2025). Key provisions include:
Legislative analyses confirm AB 1078’s intent to address Linton by codifying relief for vacated or pardoned nonviolent felony convictions, ensuring compliance with Second Amendment standards. See Assemb. Comm. on Pub. Safety, Analysis of Assemb. B. 1078, at 9–10 (Apr. 8, 2025); Assemb. Comm. on Appropriations, Analysis of Assemb. B. 1078, at 2 (Apr. 30, 2025). The bill aims to prevent further legal challenges while balancing public safety.
AB 1078 renders the following individuals not prohibited from possessing firearms in California:
However, AB 1078 does not directly affect domestic violence convictions under Penal Code § 29805 or 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). These individuals remain prohibited unless they secure a pardon explicitly restoring firearm rights, consistent with existing law. Frawley, 82 Cal. App. 4th at 788; Beecham, 511 U.S. at 374.
The DOJ does not need AB 1078 to comply with Linton v. Bonta. The court’s ruling binds the DOJ to cease enforcing Penal Code § 29800 against individuals with vacated or pardoned nonviolent felony convictions, as this practice was deemed unconstitutional. Linton, slip op. at 21. The DOJ has administrative authority to revise its policies, training materials, and background check protocols to recognize out-of-state relief, as Penal Code § 29800 is silent on how such convictions are treated. Id. at 7; see also Cal. Penal Code § 28220 (DOJ’s role in background checks).
The DOJ’s current policy, as documented in Linton, is an administrative choice, not a statutory mandate. Linton, slip op. at 9 (Dkt. No. 62-6, Ex. C). Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(20)) and cases like Beecham provide a model for recognizing out-of-state vacaturs, which the DOJ could adopt administratively. Beecham, 511 U.S. at 374. Post-Linton, the DOJ can update its processes to verify out-of-state relief, as it already does for some convictions, ensuring compliance without waiting for AB 1078. Linton, slip op. at 8 (Dkt. No. 62-6, Ex. A). While AB 1078 codifies this obligation, the DOJ’s immediate duty to follow Linton exists independently.
At The Davis Law Firm, we specialize in restoring firearm rights for individuals wrongfully denied their Second Amendment protections. Our expertise in California and federal firearm laws, combined with our track record in challenging unconstitutional restrictions, positions us to assist clients impacted by Linton and AB 1078. We offer:
The Linton decision and AB 1078 signal a turning point for firearm rights in California, particularly for those with nonviolent, out-of-state convictions. However, the DOJ’s slow response to judicial mandates underscores the need for vigilant advocacy. Individuals with domestic violence convictions face ongoing challenges, as Linton does not directly apply, but the decision’s reasoning could inspire future litigation if the DOJ fails to recognize valid out-of-state relief. See United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 685 (2024) (upholding bans for dangerous individuals but not addressing vacated convictions).
For those affected, immediate action is critical. The DOJ may resist changing its policies until forced by injunctions or legislation, and AB 1078’s passage is not guaranteed. At The Davis Law Firm, we are ready to fight for your rights, whether through litigation, administrative challenges, or strategic planning. Contact us at www.calgunlawyers.com to schedule a consultation and reclaim your Second Amendment protections.
Jason Davis is the founder of The Davis Law Firm, a premier California-based practice dedicated to firearm rights restoration and Second Amendment advocacy. With decades of experience, we stand at the forefront of defending constitutional freedoms.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.