California’s gun laws face significant Second Amendment challenges, and under the framework the Supreme Court set in 2022, courts have already struck down or blocked parts of them while leaving others in force. The state’s assault weapons ban, large-capacity magazine prohibition, handgun roster, concealed carry rules, and purchase limits are all in active litigation. Whether any given restriction survives now turns on a single question: can the state show it fits within America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?
The Bruen Test Changed Everything
For more than a decade after District of Columbia v. Heller recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms in 2008, lower courts weighed the government’s public-safety interest against the burden on gun owners.1Supreme Court of the United States. District of Columbia v. Heller (554 U.S. 570) That balancing approach is gone. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court replaced it with a two-step test: if the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the government must prove the regulation is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.2Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen
Policy arguments about modern harm no longer decide the case. The state has to point to founding-era or Reconstruction-era analogues that support the modern restriction. Many California laws were upheld under the old framework, and courts must now re-examine them with a purely historical lens and with the burden squarely on the state.
The Assault Weapons Ban Is Back in District Court
California’s Assault Weapons Control Act, codified starting at Penal Code Section 30500, prohibits possessing, manufacturing, or selling firearms the state classifies as “assault weapons” based on external features like a pistol grip, folding stock, or flash suppressor.3California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 305004California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 30515 Two rifles firing the same ammunition at the same rate can end up on opposite sides of the line based on cosmetics.
In Miller v. Bonta, plaintiffs argue the banned rifles are among the most commonly owned in America and fall within Heller‘s protection for arms “in common use.” Industry estimates put AR-15-style rifles in civilian hands at over 24 million. A federal district court in the Southern District of California twice found the ban unconstitutional, though both rulings were stayed pending appeal.5FindLaw. Miller v. Bonta The case was remanded after Bruen and is back in the district court for further proceedings under the historical test.
The ban remains enforceable while the case moves. A violation is punishable by up to a year in county jail or a state prison term, though a first offense involving no more than two previously legal firearms can be reduced to a $500 fine.6California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 30605
The Magazine Ban Is Headed to the Supreme Court
Penal Code Section 32310 bans magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, covering manufacture, sale, and possession even for magazines acquired legally before the ban.7California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 32310 Possession is charged as an infraction or misdemeanor, with fines up to $100 per magazine and up to a year in county jail.
The challenge in Duncan v. Bonta argues that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are standard equipment on the most popular handguns and rifles in America and therefore qualify as protected “arms.” On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld the ban over a dissent that called it unconstitutional under Bruen.8Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Duncan v. Bonta Challengers have petitioned the Supreme Court for review, and that petition is pending. Given the stakes and the sharp division within the Ninth Circuit, many observers expect the Court to take it.
The Handgun Roster Is Enjoined but Enforceable on Appeal
California’s Unsafe Handgun Act creates a roster of handgun models licensed dealers may sell. Under Penal Code Section 31910, any new centerfire semiautomatic pistol added to the roster since July 2022 must have a chamber load indicator and, if it uses a detachable magazine, a magazine disconnect mechanism.9California Legislative Information. California Code Penal Code 31910 For every new semiautomatic pistol added, three older models lacking the required features come off. The Attorney General maintains the roster through the Department of Justice.10State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Handguns Certified for Sale
In Boland v. Bonta, a district court granted a preliminary injunction in 2023, finding the challengers were likely to succeed on the merits. The Ninth Circuit is now hearing the appeal and has requested supplemental briefing in light of Duncan. The core argument is that no historical tradition supports the government dictating which specific handgun models citizens may buy.
Looking further ahead, SB 452 will require dealers to verify that any semiautomatic pistol manufactured or delivered on or after January 1, 2028, is “microstamping-enabled,” but only if the Department of Justice first determines the technology is technologically viable and commercially available.11State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Senate Bill (SB) 452 Microstamping No widely available commercial handgun currently uses it.
Concealed Carry After Bruen
Before Bruen, California required concealed carry applicants to show “good cause” beyond ordinary self-defense. The Supreme Court’s ruling invalidated exactly that kind of requirement, and California’s Attorney General publicly acknowledged that the good-cause standard in Penal Code Sections 26150 and 26155 was unconstitutional and unenforceable.12State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Legal Alert re Scope of Bruen The remaining requirements, including good moral character, residency, training, and a background check, still apply.
California responded with SB 2, which sharply expanded the “sensitive places” where permit holders cannot carry. The Ninth Circuit partially blocked the law. Bans on concealed carry at hospitals, places of worship, public transit, financial institutions, and permitted gatherings were enjoined. Bans at bars, playgrounds, youth centers, parks, stadiums, libraries, amusement parks, and casinos were left in place. The result is a patchwork that permit holders have to track location by location, and further litigation is expected. Criminal penalties for carrying without a license remain fully enforceable.
Waiting Period Intact, Purchase Limit Struck Down
California’s 10-day waiting period under Penal Code Section 26815 applies to every firearm sale and overrides the federal default that allows transfers to proceed after three business days if no background-check determination has been made.13California Legislative Information. California Code PEN 2681514Federal Bureau of Investigation. About NICS The waiting period remains in effect.
The state’s one-gun-per-month rule, which limited purchase applications to one handgun or semiautomatic centerfire rifle every 30 days and was expanded over time to cover additional firearm types, did not survive. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit struck it down for lack of historical support under Bruen. The state’s ability to enforce the restriction going forward depends on whether that ruling holds through further appeal.
Why “Common Use” Keeps Deciding These Cases
Heller protects arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes and leaves the government free to restrict “dangerous and unusual weapons.”15Justia. District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) That distinction is doing most of the work in the California cases. Estimates of AR-15 ownership range from 16 million to over 24 million rifles. Magazines holding more than 10 rounds ship standard with most full-size handguns and rifles sold nationally.
When millions of law-abiding citizens own the firearm or accessory in question, banning it requires the state to identify historical analogues that justify the prohibition. Colonial-era gunpowder storage laws and Reconstruction-era concealed carry statutes exist, but direct precedents for banning specific firearm features or magazine capacities are thin. That gap is the recurring weak point in the state’s defense of these laws.
What You Can and Cannot Do Right Now
The bottom line for anyone in California: unless a court has specifically enjoined a law, it is enforceable. Stays have kept the assault weapons ban and other restrictions in place during appeals even where a district court ruled them unconstitutional. Violating California’s gun laws still carries real criminal exposure, including felony charges.
Case by case:
- Assault weapons ban (Miller v. Bonta): enforceable; back before the Southern District of California on remand under Bruen.
- Magazine ban (Duncan v. Bonta): enforceable; upheld en banc by the Ninth Circuit in March 2025, cert petition pending.8Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Duncan v. Bonta
- Handgun roster (Boland v. Bonta): preliminary injunction issued in 2023, appeal pending at the Ninth Circuit.
- Concealed carry “good cause”: invalidated; other permit requirements still apply.
- SB 2 sensitive places: partially blocked; bans at hospitals, places of worship, transit, banks, and permitted gatherings enjoined; bans at bars, playgrounds, parks, stadiums, libraries, and casinos in force.
- One-gun-per-month rule: struck down by the Ninth Circuit in 2025.
- 10-day waiting period: in force.
The Duncan cert petition gives the Supreme Court a chance to clarify how strictly lower courts must apply Bruen‘s historical test. If the Court takes the case, the ruling could reach well beyond magazines and reshape the constitutional analysis for every California restriction built on the same framework.