Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

California Legal Update | February 2019

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: The State filed a motion to dismiss which was denied by the District Court. The case is now in the discovery phase of litigation.

  • Rupp v. Becerra: Challenge to California’s “assault weapon” restrictions

    Case StatusThe 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: The case is now proceeding on the merits and is currently in the discovery phase of litigation.


  • Duncan v. Becerra: Challenge to California's ban on standard capacity magazines

    Case StatusThe 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 case is currently pending a ruling on plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, which was argued in May 2018. If summary judgment is granted, the injunction will become permanent, but the State is likely to appeal.


  • 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 will soon be filing an appeal in California’s 5th District Court of Appeal.

  • Flanagan v. Becerra: Challenge to California and Los Angeles' Firearm Carry Restrictions Prohibitting Both Open and Concealed Carry

    (Formerly Flanagan v. Harris)

    Case StatusThe 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.


  • Gentry v. Becerra: Challenge to DOJ's Use of DROS surplus to fund APPS

    (formerly Gentry v. Harris)

    Case StatusPlaintiffs 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: A final trial in this case is currently scheduled for January 18, 2019.



  • Parker v. California: Vagueness challenge to AB 962's "handgun ammunition" sales registration requirement and mail order ban

    Case StatusIn 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: The trial court partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees for work in the trial court. As a result, the parties are currently negotiating a total fee award.

  • CRPA v. City of Los Angeles: Challenge to Los Angeles' refusal to disclose public records regarding firearms in law enforcement custody

    Case StatusCRPA 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 StatusThe 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 have requested additional time to file a petition with the United States Supreme Court to rehear the case, which is currently due December 31, 2018.

  • Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Becerra: 1st Amendment challenge to handgun ad prohibition

    (formerly Tracy Rifle & Pistol v. Harris)

    Case StatusIn 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 StatusIn 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. Other potential challenges to California’s microstamping requirements are currently being considered.

  • Rodriguez v. City of San Jose: Challenge to San Jose's refusal to return seized firearms

    Case StatusFollowing 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: Oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit were held on January 14, 2019. A decision is currently pending.

National Cases with California Interest

  • Sessions v. Hatfield: Challenge to federal firearm restriction due to non-violent, decades-old felony conviction

    Case StatusHaving 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: Although the “en banc” decision is now final, other lawsuits challenging similar restrictions (such as Rupp) are currently pending, and will provide another opportunity for the Supreme Court hear an “assault weapon” lawsuit.

  • Grace v. District of Columbia: Challenges Washington D.C.’s “good reason” requirement for the issuance of a CCW permit

    Case StatusOn 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.


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.


  • Santa Clara County Gun Shows

    Description: In March 2018, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors directed County Counsel to draft an ordinance prohibiting gun shows on county-owned property. In May 2018 the Board proposed an ordinance on the agenda.

    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.

    Current Status: The Board set up an ad hoc committee of two members to look at the safety issues with gun shows even though there are none at the Ventura guns show. The Board will continue to study the policies around gun shows, but they did vote to approve the first two contracts of 2019.Contact the Board members and CEO and tell them you support keeping the gun show in Ventura.

  • Cow Palace Gun Shows

    DescriptionAt 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

    DescriptionMany 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.

  • City of Healdsburg

    Description: The City Council suggested drafting Conditional Use Permits for a moratorium on new firearm businesses coming to the city.

    LOP Response: There was no action by the City Council for several months until September 2018 when the Council finally passed a 45-day moratorium for zoning of new firearms businesses.

    Status: Monitoring to see changes and for actions after the 45 days.

  • City of Moraga
  • City of San Carlos

    DescriptionAt the January 14, 2019 meeting of the City Council, the City considered a study session on whether to allow gun stores within the City. They presented “Model Regulations” from known anti-gun group Gifford Law Center.

    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.

Regulatory Matters

  • 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

    DescriptionIn 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.

    Regulatory Counsel Response: Submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in early March 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's Proposed "Ghost Gun" Regulations

    Description: In January 2018, DOJ officially proposed its anticipated regulations regarding the serialization of home-built firearms pursuant to AB 857.

    Regulatory Counsel Response: Alerted members to the proposal and submitted a letter of comment during the public hearing in late March 2018. NRA and CRPA attorneys also hosted a webinar for gun owners on the new requirements in late June 2018.

    Current Status: The regulations are now final and are currently being enforced.

  • CA DOJ Proposed Certificate of Eligibility (COE) Regulations

    Description: In March 2018, DOJ proposed a comprehensive set of regulatory changes to the initial and renewal application process for COE, which are now required for all employees of California licensed firearm dealers.

    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

    Description: In March 2018, DOJ proposed regulatory changes to the process for transferring a firearm through DOJ’s DROS Entry System.

    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.

    Current Status: In March 2018, ATF officially revised its policy to allow California residents with non-REAL IDs to purchase firearms.

  • Public Record Requests

    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

    Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities, Regulatory Bodies

    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

    Agency: N/A

    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.

  • Monitoring anti-hunting forces

    Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities, Regulatory Bodies

    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

    Agency: N/A

    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.

  • Membership Alerts

    Agency: N/A

    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.

    Status: Ongoing.

  • Fighting Anti-hunting Regulations

    Agency: Fish & Game Commission

    Recent Action: Submitted petitions to allow archery hunters to carry side arms for self-defense.  

    Status: The Commission has granted the petition and is expected to repeal the existing regulation prohibiting archery hunters from carrying sidearms with a valid CCW.

  • Opposing HSUS Predator Policies

    Agency: Fish & Game Commission, Municipalities

    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

  • Stormwater runoff

    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.

NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

Monday, April 1, 2024

NRA Scores Legal Victory Against ATF; “Pistol Brace Rule” Enjoined From Going Into Effect Against NRA Members

NRA Members Among the Largest Class Protected from Draconian Rule

U.S. Supreme Court invalidates ATF Rule Classifying Bump Stocks as Machineguns

Friday, June 14, 2024

U.S. Supreme Court invalidates ATF Rule Classifying Bump Stocks as Machineguns

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives unlawfully exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machineguns.

Biden Was Right on Veterans Before He was Wrong; Now Congress Tightens the Reins

Monday, June 10, 2024

Biden Was Right on Veterans Before He was Wrong; Now Congress Tightens the Reins

In March, we reported on an appropriations rider that corrected a longstanding and shameful practice by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of reporting beneficiaries to NICS as “mental defectives” prohibited from having guns, merely ...

NRA Secures Landmark Legal Victory; Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against Former New York Regulator


Thursday, May 30, 2024

NRA Secures Landmark Legal Victory; Supreme Court Unanimously Rules for NRA in First Amendment Case Against Former New York Regulator

The National Rifle Association of America (NRA) scored a historic legal victory today in one of the most closely followed First Amendment cases in the nation. In a stinging rebuke of New York’s “blacklisting campaign” against ...

NRA Files Amicus Brief with Ninth Circuit in Challenge to California’s Billy Club Ban

Friday, June 14, 2024

NRA Files Amicus Brief with Ninth Circuit in Challenge to California’s Billy Club Ban

Today, NRA filed an amicus brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in support of a challenge to California’s prohibition on the possession of billy clubs.

Chicago Crime Alerts – Pernicious Perception or an Inconvenient Truth?

Monday, June 10, 2024

Chicago Crime Alerts – Pernicious Perception or an Inconvenient Truth?

Earlier this year, Chicago city council member Leni Manaa-Hoppenworth made steering-wheel locks available for free to interested residents. The message she shared was that “[s]afety is a top priority for our office. We believe that everyone deserves ...

California: Mandatory Storage Legislation Passed in Committee

Wednesday, June 12, 2024

California: Mandatory Storage Legislation Passed in Committee

Yesterday, Senate Bill 53 passed in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on a 6-2 vote and has been referred to the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

New York: Legislature Wraps Up 2024 Regular Session

Tuesday, June 11, 2024

New York: Legislature Wraps Up 2024 Regular Session

Gun owners have reason to celebrate when lawmakers drop the final gavel in Albany. Late Friday night, legislators finished their work and mercifully called it quits. It was a mixed bag for gun owners as the Legislature ...

California: Mandatory Storage Legislation Scheduled for Committee Hearing

Thursday, June 6, 2024

California: Mandatory Storage Legislation Scheduled for Committee Hearing

On Tuesday, June 11th, the California State Assembly Committee on Public Safety will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 53 to impose strict storage mandates on California’s law-abiding gun owners. 

Delaware: House Passes Legislation to Restrict Firearms on College Campuses and Properties!

Friday, June 14, 2024

Delaware: House Passes Legislation to Restrict Firearms on College Campuses and Properties!

Yesterday, the House of Representatives passed House Bill 311, restricting firearms on college campuses and college-owned properties, even for concealed carry permit holders. This legislation now goes to the Senate Judiciary Commitee, where it will receive ...


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.