This report provides an overview of just some of the efforts the National Rifle Association of America and the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., are taking to protect the rights of California gun owners. Although litigation plays an extremely important role in the fight for the right to keep and bear arms, NRA and CRPA are heavily involved in many other tremendous and equally important endeavors throughout California and across the nation.
As has been and always will be the case, NRA and CRPA invest enormous amounts of resources to protect the Second Amendment at all levels of California’s government, including all 58 counties, all 482 municipalities, and all state and local agencies tasked with enforcing the myriad of complex and ever expanding gun laws.
Firearms Litigation Report
The litigation report provides a brief overview and update on NRA and CRPA’s recent litigation efforts in California, including amicus and consulting support in other firearm related cases.
Local Ordinance Project Report
The Local Ordinance Project (“LOP”) is a joint venture between the NRA and CRPA to research and actively monitor all of California’s local jurisdictions to oppose any proposed ordinance, law, or policy that threatens Second Amendment Rights. LOP efforts include developing and working with a network of professionals, citizens, local government officials, and law enforcement professionals to effectively oppose local threats to California gun owners.
Opposition campaigns typically include the preparation of opposition or pre-litigation demand letters, grassroots coordination, public information campaigns, and, in some cases, appearances at city council hearings. In many instances, these efforts have prompted local governments to vote down proposals or pull them from consideration. LOP efforts also serve as the foundation for NRA and CRPA litigation efforts against municipalities that enact anti-gun legislation.
Regulatory Matters Report
NRA and CRPA are also heavily invested in firearm law enforcement issues through their Regulatory Counsel efforts, which monitors the California DOJ and local law enforcement's interpretations of California firearm laws on a daily basis.
Ongoing efforts include drafting regulatory comment letters, providing legal support to NRA and CRPA lobbyists, drafting NRA and CRPA member alerts, and providing advice to NRA and CRPA members. Regulatory Counsel also collaborates with overlapping litigation, legislative, and regulatory matters to effectively oppose improper actions and incorrect interpretations of California law by state and local agencies.
Regulatory Counsel is responsible for many of the recently published webinars available on the CRPA’s website which provide gun owners with a comprehensive analysis of recently enacted legislation and the recently proposed “assault weapon” regulations from the California DOJ.
Hunting Matters Report
Closely related to Regulatory Counsel are NRA and CRPA’s efforts to monitor and respond to issues impacting hunters throughout California. These efforts include developing strategies and taking action when necessary before the Legislature, the Fish & Game Commission, local municipalities, and other various regulatory agencies.
Hunting Regulatory efforts are also dedicated to pushing back against rabidly anti-hunting forces such as the United States Humane Society, and to improve policies impacting hunters in California to effectively promote and defend the right to hunt in California.
Range Matters Report
Last but not least, NRA and CRPA continually monitor environmental, land use, and design and safety issues that heavily affect shooting ranges and areas in California and throughout the nation.
NRA and CRPA’s range assistance efforts include regular range evaluations and meeting with Club Boards to strategize and assist with coordination of defense campaigns against “not in my backyard” efforts from environmental non-governmental organizations, state and federal agencies, and municipal governments.
Click on the case name below to reveal more information about the case status and what's next.
California and 9th Circuit Litigation Matters
Rhode v. Becerra: Challenge to California's Ammunition Sales Restrictions
Case Status:The case was filed on April 26, 2018, in response to Proposition 63 and Senate Bill 1235’s restrictions regarding the sale and transfer of ammunition in California. The lawsuit challenges these restrictions as a violation of the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as a violation of the Firearm Owner’s Protection Act.
What's Next: On April 23, 2020 Judge Benitez granted Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement of the challenged laws. On April 24, the Court of Appeals ordered a temporary stay of the injunction pending further court order.
Rupp v. Becerra: Challenge to California’s “assault weapon” restrictions
Case Status: The case was filed on April 24, 2017, in response to SB 880 and AB 1135. It challenges California’s entire “assault weapon” ban as violating the Second Amendment and due process and takings clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction motion to prevent the State from requiring individuals to provide the date they acquired their firearms and the name and address of the person from whom they acquired them, as a condition of registration, but that motion was denied on May 9, 2018.
What's Next: Plaintiffs and the State filed cross-motions for summary judgment in late March 2019. The federal court heard oral argument on May 31, 2019. Plaintiffs also filed multiple motions to disqualify several of the State’s expert witnesses.
However, on July 22, 2019, the court granted the State’s motion for summary judgment, ending the case in the State’s favor.
Plaintiffs appealed to the 9th Circuit on August 27, 2019. Plaintiffs’ appeal brief is currently due December 5, 2019.
Duncan v. Becerra: Challenge to California's ban on standard capacity magazines
Case Status: The case was filed in response to SB 1446 and Prop 63. It challenges California’s ban on the acquisition and possession of magazines over ten rounds. On June 29, the district court granted plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, halting enforcement of the newly enacted possession ban while the case is litigated. The State immediately appealed the injunction order. In July 2018, the Ninth circuit upheld the issuance of the injunction.
What's Next: The federal District Court, where Judge Benitez presides, granted Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion, which permanently enjoined Penal Code Sec. 32310 on March 29, 2019. This legalized the acquisition of standard-capacity magazines. However, the court entered a stay of the injunction, effective 5:00 p.m. on April 5, 2019.
The State appealed its loss to the 9th Cir. All parties have submitted their briefs and are waiting for the court to set a date for oral argument.
Villanueva v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ’s recently enacted “assault weapon” registration regulations
Case Status:The case was filed on September 8, 2017, in response to California DOJ adopting regulations concerning newly classified “assault weapons” under SB 880 and AB 1135. It challenges the regulations under California’s Administrative Procedure Act because they were enacted without legislative authority and without any input from members of the public.
What's Next: On May 30, 2018, the court issued an order upholding the regulations as valid. Plaintiffs appealed and filed their opening brief in California’s 5th District Court of Appeal in late March 2019. The State filed its’ appeal brief on August 9, 2019. Plaintiffs’ brief is due October 8, 2019.
Flanagan v. Becerra: Challenge to California and Los Angeles' Firearm Carry Restrictions Prohibitting Both Open and Concealed Carry
(Formerly Flanagan v. Harris)
Case Status: The case was filed on August 17, 2016, as a direct response to Peruta. It seeks to force the court to decide whether it is willing to uphold a complete prohibition on the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for self-defense. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. In May 2018, the court issued a decision granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
What's Next: Plaintiffs have filed an appeal in the Ninth Circuit, and the State has filed a petition to have the case heard initially by an 11-judge “en banc” panel along with the Young v. Hawaii lawsuit.
However, instead of allowing the case to proceed, the 9th Cir. Stayed the case on July 30, 2019 pending the outcome of Young v. Hawaii.
Gentry v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ's Use of DROS surplus to fund APPS
(formerly Gentry v. Harris)
Case Status: Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging that the DROS fee is an invalid tax. On August 9, 2017, the district court issued a ruling granting Plaintiffs’ request to prohibit DOJ from using DROS fees to fund unrelated law enforcement efforts and requiring DOJ to perform its statutorily required review of the current $19 fee to determine whether it is “no more than necessary to fund” DOJ’s costs for processing DROS transactions.
What's Next: Trial was held in January of 2019. The Court recently entered an order that will be incorporated into a forthcoming final judgment upholding the DROS fee as a legitimate regulatory fee. Plaintiffs argue that the Court’s finding contradicts established law regarding regulatory fees. Plaintiffs started the appeal process by filing a notice of appeal on June 4, 2019.
Parker v. California: Vagueness challenge to AB 962's "handgun ammunition" sales registration requirement and mail order ban
Case Status: In December 2016, because of Prop 63, the California Supreme Court dismissed its review of a Court of Appeal opinion affirming the trial court’s order striking down AB 962. The Court of Appeal’s decision is now the final opinion in the case, and Plaintiffs are seeking their attorneys’ fees against the State.
What's Next: After the trial court partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees for work in the trial court, parties negotiated an agreement regarding a total fee award. In September of 2019, plaintiffs received $433,860.20 from the State.
CRPA v. City of Los Angeles: Challenge to Los Angeles' refusal to disclose public records regarding firearms in law enforcement custody
Case Status: CRPA filed a lawsuit challenging Los Angeles City’s refusal to disclose records related to secretly obtained disposition orders used by LAPD to justify the destruction of firearms in its possession. Rather than litigate, the City agreed to settle the lawsuit and turn over the records to CRPA.
What's Next: The City agreed to pay $35,000 to cover CRPA’s attorneys’ fees as a result of the lawsuit. The case is now closed.
California and 9th Circuit Amicus and Consulting Support
Pena v. Lindley: California Handgun Roster
Case Status: The federal district court upheld the Roster in 2015. Plaintiffs appealed, and oral arguments were held on March 16, 2017. NRA and CRPA filed an amicus brief in the case on July 27, 2015. On August 3, 2018, the Ninth Circuit upheld the Roster.
What's Next: Plaintiffs docketed their petition for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on January 3, 2019. It is now up to the Supreme Court to determine whether it will take or decline the case.
Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Becerra: 1st Amendment challenge to handgun ad prohibition
(formerly Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Harris)
Case Status: In July 2015, the district court denied a request to prohibit enforcement while the case proceeds. That decision was appealed, and in February 2016 the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court’s order within two weeks of oral arguments. However, following the appeal of the preliminary injunction, the district court issued a permanent injunction.
What's Next: As a result of the permanent injunction, California is now prohibited from enforcing its arbitrary and ineffective handgun ad ban.
NSSF v. California: State Court challenge to California's microstamping requirements
Case Status: In December 2016, the California Court of Appeal issued a ruling in favor of NSSF, allowing the lawsuit to proceed in the lower court. But in June 2018, the California Supreme Court reversed, upholding the trial court’s judgment in favor of the State. NSSF Petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider its opinion, but that petition was denied in August 2018.
What's Next: As a result of the California Supreme Court opinion, the case is now closed. Another case challenging the microstamping requirement/roster, Pena v. Lindley (Horan), may be heard by the Supreme Court.
Rodriguez v. City of San Jose: Challenge to San Jose's refusal to return seized firearms
Case Status: Following the City of San Jose’s refusal to return firearms seized by law enforcement, a lawsuit was filed alleging violations of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. In September 2017, a federal district court upheld the City’s refusal as constitutional. Plaintiff has appealed, with CRPA filing an important amicus brief on March 6, 2018.
What's Next: On January 14, 2019, the 9th Cir. heard oral argument. On July 23, 2019, the 9th affirmed the district court’s summary judgement ruling in favor of the City of San Jose. On September 24, 2019, the court denied Plaintiff’s application to have the case re-heard en banc.
National Cases with California Interest
Sessions v. Hatfield: Challenge to federal firearm restriction due to non-violent, decades-old felony conviction
Case Status: Having suffered a lifetime firearm restriction due to a non-violent felony, Plaintiff filed suit challenging the restriction as unconstitutional. On April 26, 2018, a federal district court struck down the restriction as unconstitutional as applied to the Plaintiff. The government has appealed, with CRPA filing an important amicus brief on October 12, 2018.
What's Next: The 7th Circuit court of appeals issued an opinion on June 6, 2019 reversing the district court’s favorable ruling. On August 7, 2019, the 7th Circuit denied Plaintiff’s petition to re-hear the case en banc.
Grace v. District of Columbia: Challenges Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW permit
Case Status: On July 25, the D.C. Circuit issued its decision declaring Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW as a violation of the Second Amendment. The Court also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting D.C. from enforcing the requirement.
On September 28, the D.C. Circuit denied Washington D.C.’s request for rehearing.
What's Next: On October 5, 2015, Washington D.C.’s Attorney General decided to not petition the case to the United States Supreme Court. As a result, Washington D.C. is now effectively a “shall-issue” jurisdiction.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn, Inc vs. City of New York - Whether the City of New York's ban on transporting a lawfully owned handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause and right to travel
Case Status: The case is fully briefed at the United States Supreme Court, with oral argument scheduled for December 2, 2019. This is the first Second Amendment case to be heard in nearly a decade, with the potential to have significant impact on the scope of the right to bear arms.
What's Next: The case comes to the high court on somewhat unusual footing, because the Supreme Court may not actually have jurisdiction to make a ruling on it anymore due to New York’s underhanded efforts to make the case “moot.” Expect that issue to be a core aspect of the Court’s eventual disposition of the case.
Mance v. Barr: Is the federal law that prohibits consumers from acquiring hand-guns outside their home state consistent with the Second Amendment and the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause
Case Status: Plaintiff’s petition for writ of certiorari is pending before the United States Supreme Court.
What's Next: Either the high court will grant certiorari and hear the case or not. At this point, the chance that happening is slim, although not impossible.
Local Advocacy Project
Arcata City Council Mandatory Lock Storage and Reporting
Description:In May 2018, the Arcata City Council considered new ordinance for gun safety which include mandatory lock storage and reporting of lost and stolen firearms.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA drafted responses in opposition to the ordinance based on constitutional issues and an inability of law enforcement to enforce these types of laws.
Current Status: There was no action for several months and on September 18th the Council voted to adopt the new ordinance.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposal. County Board of Supervisors is set to consider ordinance at June 5th meeting. Adopted Ordinance No. NS-624.8-Regulation of Firearms and Ammunition on County Property.
Current Status: NRA and CRPA are monitoring county agenda and further action.
Del Mar Fairgrounds Moratorium on Gun Shows
Description:For months the Del Mar gun show has been under siege from groups seeking to end the show. On September 11, 2018 the Del Mar Fair Board of Directors voted to institute an up to one year moratorium on gun shows beginning in 2019 while they “study the safety” of the gun show.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA called on members and Second Amendment supporters to attend and have your voices heard. They wrote letters and provided testimony regarding the safe and lawful activity of the gun show for over 30 years.
Current Status: With the passage of the moratorium, NRA, CRPA, and other groups are looking to challenge this unconstitutional attack on your rights. Watch for more information as available.
Ventura County Fair Board Considers Gun Shows
Description: In May the Ventura County Fair Board considered contracts for upcoming gun shows in 2018 and 2018. They approved the remaining 2018 shows to move forward. At the September 25, 2018 Board meeting, in a room of more than 100 gun show supporters, they considered the future of gun shows at the Ventura Fair facility.
LOP Response: This is a concerted effort by anti-gun groups to end gun shows in California. They are working with the national groups to make a statement that “we just don’t need” gun shows. NRA and CRPA are fighting against these groups and the false narrative. Over 100 members and supporters of the Second Amendment flooded the Board room and provided testimony and written comments to the Board.
Description: At the state level the California Legislature passed a bill that would ban gun shows at the Cow Palace state venue as part of the concerted effort by opposition groups.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA have drafted letters to Legislators and letters of opposition to the Governor encouraging a veto of such an ill-conceived piece of legislation that violates constitutional rights.
Current Status: Proposed legislation to stop gun shows at the Cow Palace was vetoed by Governor Brown, but anti-gun groups are still in full force trying to influence the Cow Palace Board. NRA and CRPA are monitoring and continue to send vital information to the Board on behalf of members and clients.
Orange County CCW Applications
Description: Many Orange County residents to this day are still confused as to the specific requirements for obtaining a CCW in Orange County.
LOP Response: Prepared a comprehensive guide discussing the entire application process for obtaining a CCW in Orange County, including what is required to satisfy the Sheriff’s “good cause” policy.
Current Status: NRA and CRPA are working hard to bring "shall-issue" to California. In the meantime, CRPA will continue to provide gun owners with helpful guides on how they can apply for a CCW in their respective county of residence.
Orange County Fair Grounds
Description: For months the Orange County Fair Board has considered the future of gun shows at the venue.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA alerted members to attend meeting and voice opposition. Submitted letters of opposition informing the Fair Board of the serious legal issues with discriminating against a segment of the population just because some do not like the legal activity.
Current Status: The Orange County Fair Board has agreed to move forward with gun shows at the venue at this time. NRA and CRPA will continue to monitor.
Statewide Public Record Requests
Description: NRA and CRPA regularly seek and obtain public records in connection with any anti-gun efforts in California. Such efforts include proposed anti-gun ordinances, gun buyback programs, and other anti-gun regulatory enforcement issues.
LOP Response: Responses to these requests often yield valuable results, such as which members of a local government entity are working with anti-gun groups, sources of funding, and other important information.
Current Status: Ongoing. NRA and CRPA attorneys monitor and review thousands of pages of public records requests each month.
City of Morgan Hill
Description: City of Morgan Hill- recommend to draft ordinances on duty to report theft or lost firearms, safe storage ordinance while in home, prohibit possession of LCM, require permit to conduct retail sales
LOP Response: CRPA and NRA Attorneys submitted a letter in advance of actual ordinance language being introduced to inform city of the problems with the proposal. August 2018 there was no action on agenda. Next meeting is October 3, 2018.
Status: Even though the City was alerted to their unconstitutional actions and members at the meeting in opposition to the ordinance far outweighed those in support of it, the City moved forward with the Ordinance in November 2018. NRA and CRPA are looking at potential legal action against the city currently.
City of Sunnyvale Age Restrictions on Purchasing a Firearm
Description: In August 2018, the City of Sunnyvale passed an ordinance to prohibit anyone under the age of 21 from purchasing a semi-automatic firearm.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA are monitoring the situation and reviewing the actions of the City Council as a possible violation of state law.
Status:NRA and CRPA are monitoring. Nothing new as of this publication.
City of Saratoga
Description: Possible mandatory lock storage ordinance. Video of June 20th council meeting with comments from supporters and council members here. At the June meeting the Council approved the ordinance for a second reading at the next meeting.
LOP Response: CRPA and NRA submitted a letter to the City Council regarding the constitutional concerns with the proposed ordinance. Follow up letters were sent to the city.
Status: The Council’s website states that they are currently re-considering the ordinance. As of the September 19, 2018 there is no action on the agenda. NRA and CRPA will continue to monitor.
City of Los Angeles
Description: The City Council directed the City Attorney office to draft an ordinance that would require all current and potential contractors to sign under affidavit their affiliation with NRA.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA will be submitting letters. The City Attorney will be releasing the draft ordinance in the next few weeks.
Status: Monitoring and alerts to members regarding agenda developments and upcoming meetings will be sent once available.
LOP Response: The City brought in special legal council to assist the City in conducting a study. In November 2017 the City placed a moratorium against new firearm retailers to open when Turner’s Outdoors attempted to open a store in the City. May 12, 2019 is the end of that moratorium.
The City has held a couple of community listening sessions where NRA/CRPA members have attended.
Status: nothing to report at this time
City of Cupertino
Description: The City Council discussed a proposed ordinance for mandatory reporting of lost or stolen firearms.
LOP Response: As of November 2018 there has been no further action.
Status: Continuing to monitor.
City of Palm Springs
Description: Had in municipal code an ordinance that duplicated state law regarding reporting of lost and stolen firearms.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys drafted letters educating the city about conflict and preemption issues and requested that the ordinance be repealed.
Status: City of Palm Springs repealed the ordinance in October 2018.
City of San Diego
Description: County Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance to ban recreational shooting on federal Bureau of Land Management land where the federal government currently allows.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys and members attended meetings, wrote numerous letters regarding the lack of authority the Board of Supervisors has over federal land usage, yet they still passed the ordinance.
Status: NRA, CRPA and others are working to have the ordinance repealed because there was never any federal approval for these actions.
City of Orinda
Description: City Council passed ordinance for mandatory lock storage of firearms in the home.
LOP Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys sent letters to the City in oppositions. At the meeting there were numerous attendees that spoke in opposition to the ordinance, however the City Council refused to listen to their community members.
Status: NRA CRPA continue to monitor.
City of Oxnard
Description: City Council held a public hearing for a 45-day moratorium on any new firearm and ammunition retailers opening businesses in the city.
LOP Response: Many spoke in opposition to the moratorium and several of the council members even expressed concern with attacking a lawful business in the community and that the city staff takes far too long to draft changes to the zoning code. Eventually the 45-day moratorium passed.
Status: NRA and CRPA are monitoring the issue that will come back up on the January Board calendar.
CA DOJ's "Bullet-Button Assault Weapon" Regulations July 2017
Description:After several failed attempts, DOJ resubmitted “assault weapon” registration regulations without any substantive changes. OAL ultimately approved those regulations, which are now enforceable.
Regulatory Counsel Status: NRA and CRPA alerted members to the proposed regulations, but before NRA and CRPA attorneys could respond, California’s Office of Administrative Law approved the regulations. Prior NRA and CRPA comment letters can be viewed here, here, and here.
Current Status: NRA and CRPA attorneys filed the Villanueva lawsuit, which challenges the regulations as a violation of California’s Administrative Procedures Act. That lawsuit is ongoing.
CA DOJ’s Rejected Expansion of “Assault Weapon” Definitions
Description: In November 2017, DOJ submitted proposed regulations expanding the “assault weapon” registration definitions to apply in all circumstances, including enforcement of CA law.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys alerted members to the proposed regulation, and submitted a comprehensive opposition letter. A representative for NRA and CRPA also attended the public hearing to voice opposition.
Current Status: Following opposition from NRA and CRPA attorneys, DOJ voluntarily withdrew their proposal. As a result, there are currently no regulations defining terms used to identify “assault weapons” that can be used for enforcement of California law.
CA DOJ's Proposed "Ammunition Vendor Licensing" Regulations
Description: In July 2017, CA DOJ submitted its anticipated regulations for the issuance of ammunition vendor licenses.
Regulatory Counsel Response: Alerted members to the proposal and provided members with information on how to submit comments on the proposal. NRA and CRPA also submitted a letter of comment.
Current Status: These regulations have now been adopted and are currently being enforced. Additional regulations regarding the background check requirements have yet to be introduced.
CA DOJ's Proposed Firearm Safety Device and Handgun Testing Regulations
Description:In January 2018, DOJ proposed a number of regulations regarding the certification of laboratories for handgun and safety device testing, and additional regulations regarding minimum standards for gun safes.
Current Status: In July 2018, DOJ notified the public of proposed modifications to the regulations, opening up a second public comment period. DOJ must still issue a Final Statement of Reasons before submitting the proposed regulations to OAL for approval.
Regulatory Counsel Response: Submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in April 2018.
Current Status:In July 2018, DOJ notified the public of proposed modifications to the regulations, opening up a second public comment period. DOJ must still issue a Final Statement of Reasons before submitting the proposed regulations to OAL for approval.
CA DOJ Proposed Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) Entry System Regulations
Regulatory Counsel Response: Submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in May 2018.
Current Status:Awaiting further action by DOJ, who must still issue a Final Statement of Reasons before submitting the proposed regulations to OAL for approval.
Use of Non-REAL IDs for Firearm Purchases
Description: In January 2018, the California DMV began issuing REAL IDs. But because non-REAL IDs have “FEDERAL LIMITS APPLY” language, ATF and DOJ determined they could not be used to purchase a firearm.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA attorneys initially alerted members to the issue, and have since worked with ATF, DMV, and CA DOJ on a solution.
Description: NRA and CRPA regularly seek and obtain public records from CA DOJ and local law enforcement relating to internal agency policies and interpretations of CA firearm laws.
Regulatory Counsel Response: Recently, responses to these requests provided key financial analysis reports from CA DOJ and other state agencies regarding proposed firearm legislation. These reports were subsequently used in drafting legislative opposition letters and veto requests to the governor.
Current Status: Ongoing.
New California Gun Laws
Description: Given California's continually evolving and complex firearm laws, many gun owners, manufacturers, and dealers are often left wondering how best to avoid being prosecuted for otherwise unintentional violations that can result in serious consequences.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA regularly work to provide Californians with up-to-date information on California laws, regulations, and policies regarding firearms to help gun owners avoid prosecution and retain their right to keep and bear arms.
Current Status: Ongoing. In connection with these efforts, NRA and CRPA continue to produce webinars on a variety of topics, including the loaning of firearms, “assault weapon” laws, ammunition sales laws, and the recently adopted “assault weapon” regulations.
Assistance for California Members
Description: NRA and CPRA continually assist members with questions concerning California firearm laws.
Regulatory Counsel Response: NRA and CRPA have a variety of resources available to members, including the ability to refer individuals to attorneys specializing in firearm laws.
Current Status: Ongoing. In connection with these efforts, NRA and CRPA attorneys continue to provide analysis of parts and configurations of firearms, and provide lectures and general advice to members of the public and law enforcement regarding changes in California gun laws.
Implementation of Prop 63
Description: Beginning January 1, 2018, courts will require those convicted of firearm prohibiting offenses to turn in/transfer firearms pursuant to Prop 63.
Regulatory Counsel Response: To better inform the courts and members of the public regarding this process, and in an effort to avoid confusion and inadvertent violations, NRA and CRPA prepared and submitted a letter of comment to the Judicial Council of California.
Current Status: Continuing to monitor the implementation of Prop 63 in the courts and the problems associated with its requirements.
DOJ Website Errors
Description: In January 2018, new laws regarding firearm warning labels that reference DOJ’s website took effect. DOJ’s website, however, is woefully out-of-date.
Regulatory Counsel Response: In January, NRA and CRPA attorneys submitted a letter to the Attorney General highlighting the many inaccurate legal statements on DOJ’s website and the need for correction.
Current Status: Ongoing.
Assistance to Gun Clubs and Youth Groups
Description: California law substantially regulates and restricts the acquisition, transfer, and loan of firearms. Firearm clubs and youth groups are particularly affected by these restrictions
Regulatory Counsel Response: Currently assisting these groups navigate CA’s requirements and advising how best to avoid unintentional violations of CA law.
Current Status: Ongoing.
California’s Firearm Violence Research Center
Description: California granted $5 million to create the “California Firearm Violence Research Center.” The individual chosen to head this center is a known anti-Second Amendment advocate.
Regulatory Counsel Response: Continuing to monitor the center’s activities to ensure taxpayer money is not wasted on biased and unsubstantiated research.
Current Status: Ongoing.
Hunting Regulatory Matters
California Fish & Game Commission Vision, Mission, and Core Values Statements
Potential Legal Challenges to Regulations Restricting Hunting Right
Recent Action: Prepared memoranda on viability of lawsuits challenging anti-hunting regulations; maintain ongoing list of potential legal challenges.
Status: Ongoing efforts to closely monitor current and potential legal challenges to timely and effectively intervene or file litigation as appropriate.
Listing of Gray Wolf as Endangered Species
Recent Action: Disregarding the best science and specific findings, as well as state law, California placed the gray wolf on its endangered species list. The California Cattlemen’s Association filed suit challenging this decision. CRPA joined the lawsuit by filing an important amicus brief to assist the court in determining whether the listing of the gray wolf was arbitrary.
Status: CRPA’s amicus brief was accepted after successfully defeating a challenging for its introductions by the State. A decision on the merits of the case is currently pending.
Recent Action: Ongoing monitoring of lawsuits and activities of potential interest to hunting related matters in California. Regularly submit public records act requests for documents concerning efforts of anti-hunting groups. Analyze Fish & Game Commission meeting agendas and prepare lobbyists for addressing matters of interest at FGC & WRC meetings.
Status: Ongoing efforts to closely monitor various hunting related issues to allow for timely and effective intervention as necessary.
Increasing Support for Hunting Rights Throughout California
Recent Action: Developed and distributed computer presentations for distribution by coalition of hunting groups that outline the attacks hunters are facing. Presented to Council to Advance Hunting and Shooting Sports regarding issues in California to garner support.
Status: Ongoing efforts to grow hunting rights coalitions and spread awareness.
Recent Action: Prepare alerts regarding new hunting rules and regulations and advise of NRA and CRPA efforts to promote and defend hunting rights in California.
Recent Action: Ongoing efforts to prepare representatives for attendance at Wildlife Resource Committee hearings on predators. Presented at coyote management symposium regarding negative impacts of HSUS on predator management policies. Drafted manuscript explaining HSUS lies for publication in predator management circles. Grassroots organization to mobilize and direct local residents of cities with HSUS coyote policies.
Status: Ongoing efforts to challenge HSUS regarding non-lethal coyote policies in cities where pets and family members are being attacked. Working to broaden coalition of individuals opposed to HSUS policies in light of dangers to typical family households while informing industry members of predator management about opportunities to oppose.
Hunting Related Legislation
Agency: California Legislature and Governor’s Office
Recent Action: Assist in developing pro-hunting legislation to preserve and promote the hunting sports in California, while also assisting in efforts to oppose anti-hunting measures.
Status: In 2018, California reduced the costs of hunting for California’s youth. Governor Brown also vetoed SB 1487, an underhanded attempt to restrict African hunting by California residents. Pro-hunting legislation is currently being developed and shopped to legislators for the 2019 session.
Range Matters Report
Recent Action: Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) has been inspecting shooting ranges and requiring sampling for potential lead contamination in storm-water runoff, utilizing drinking water standards. This has the potential to set inappropriate precedent for regulating ranges for storm-water runoff.
Status: Ongoing efforts to assist ranges and engage the RWQCB to contest the validity of RWQCB’s actions.
Non-conforming “Use Status” and “Use Intensification”
Recent Action: Counties are attempting to break shooting ranges’ grandfathering as a non-conforming use under county ordinances. Once the grandfathered status of a range is broken through a use intensification argument or a subsequent local law requiring a Conditional Use Permit under the guise of health and safety concerns, compliance with current local laws is effectively impossible.
Status: Ongoing efforts to assist ranges in defending their grandfathered status is crucial in keeping these ranges open and operating.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the "lobbying" arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.