Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a personal firearm importer, within 60 days of bringing any firearm into this state, to, among other things, submit a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question to the Department of Justice. Existing law generally makes a violation of the Penal Code a misdemeanor.

This bill would also require that personal firearm importer to obtain a valid firearm safety certificate and include a copy of the valid firearm safety certificate within the report. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for that personal firearm importer to bring prohibit a person from bringing a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 60 days, except as specified. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. By creating a new prohibition, this bill would create a new crime and therefore impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires an applicant for a firearm safety certificate to pass a test developed by the Department of Justice covering specified subjects, including, among others, the laws applicable to carrying and handling firearms and the responsibilities of ownership of firearms.

This bill would require any an applicant for a firearm safety certificate, on or after July 1, 2027, to complete a training course no less than 8 hours in length that, among other things, includes instruction on firearm safety and handling and live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range. The bill would require authorize the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of this subdivision.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Existing law requires any person who purchases or receives a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate. Existing law also prohibits a person from selling or transferring a firearm to any person who does not possess a firearm safety certificate. A violation of either of these provisions is punishable as a misdemeanor. Existing law requires a personal firearm importer, within 60 days of bringing any firearm into this state, to, among other things, submit a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question to the Department of Justice.

This bill would also require that personal firearm importer to obtain a valid firearm safety certificate and include a copy of the valid firearm safety certificate within the report. The bill would make it a misdemeanor for that personal firearm importer to bring a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 60 days, except as specified. By expanding the scope of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

Existing law requires an applicant for a firearm safety certificate to pass a test developed by the Department of Justice covering specified subjects, including, among others, the laws applicable to carrying and handling firearms and the responsibilities of ownership of firearms.

This bill would require any applicant for a firearm safety certificate, on or after July 1, 2027, to complete a training course no less than 8 hours in length that, among other things, includes instruction on firearm safety and handling and live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range. The bill would require the Department of Justice to promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of this subdivision.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

Date of Hearing: April 30, 2025

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Buffy Wicks, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1187

Author:(Celeste Rodriguez) – As Amended Ver:April 10, 2025

Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: Yes Reimbursable: No

SUMMARY:

This bill requires a personal firearms importer to obtain a firearms safety certificate (FSC) within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state and requires a person to complete an eight-hour training course to obtain an FSC.

Specifically, among other provisions, this bill:

1. Requires a personal firearms importer to obtain an FSC within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state and provide a copy of the FSC to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Makes a violation of this requirement a misdemeanor, with specified exceptions.
2. Requires an applicant for an FSC to complete a training course that meets specified criteria, including that the course must be eight hours long, must include one hour of live shooting, and must be taught and supervised by a firearms instructor certified by DOJ.
3. Authorizes DOJ to promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of the FSC training course.

FISCAL EFFECT:

1. Costs (General Fund, Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account) to DOJ of an unknown but likely significant amount. DOJ was unable to provide an estimate of its costs before this analysis was prepared. DOJ will likely incur one-time costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, to update its firearm registration database to track personal firearm importer FSCs, and ongoing costs, possibly in the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, to certify additional firearm instructors to provide the training required by this bill, issue regulations, and provide information about the training required by the bill.
2. Cost pressures (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund) of an unknown amount to the courts to adjudicate misdemeanor charges authorized by this bill. Actual costs will depend on the number of cases filed and the amount of court time needed to resolve each case. It generally costs approximately $1,000 to operate a courtroom for one hour. Although courts are not funded on the basis of workload, increased pressure on the Trial Court Trust Fund may create a demand for increased funding for courts from the General Fund. The fiscal year 2024-25 state budget provides $37.3 million ongoing General Fund to backfill declining revenue to the Trial Court Trust Fund.
3. Costs (local funds, General Fund) to the counties to incarcerate people convicted of the misdemeanor created by this bill. Actual incarceration costs will depend on the number of convictions and the length of each sentence. The average annual cost to incarcerate one person in county jail is approximately $29,000. County incarceration costs are not subject to reimbursement by the state. However, overcrowding in county jails creates cost pressure on the General Fund because the state has historically granted new funding to counties to offset overcrowding resulting from public safety realignment.

COMMENTS:

A member of the public who wishes to purchase, transfer, receive, or sell a firearm in California must first obtain an FSC from DOJ by passing a written safety exam administered by a certified instructor. Peace officers, members of the military, and special weapons permit holders, among others, are expressly exempt from the requirement to obtain an FSC before acquiring a firearm.

Under existing law, the FSC requirement does not apply to a “personal firearm importer” – generally, an adult who owns a firearm they acquired outside California and who moves to California after acquiring the firearm. A personal firearm importer does not include a licensed firearm dealer, manufacturer, or importer. Current law requires a personal firearm importer to submit a New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership to DOJ within 60 days of bringing the firearm into the state so the firearm can be registered by DOJ. Alternatively, the personal firearm importer may sell or transfer the firearm instead of registering it.

This bill requires a personal firearm importer to obtain an FSC within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state and provide a copy of the FSC to DOJ with their New Resident Report of Firearm Ownership. If a personal firearm importer fails to do so, they may be charged with a misdemeanor. This offense is punishable by up to six months in county jail or a fine, or both jail and a fine. The bill also requires a person to complete an eight-hour training course, in addition to the existing testing requirement, to be eligible for an FSC. As discussed in more detail in the analysis of this bill by the Assembly Committee on Public Safety, this bill’s FSC training course requirement is similar to the existing requirements for obtaining a concealed carry weapons (CCW) license. California’s CCW licensing requirements have traditionally been more rigorous than FSC requirements because a CCW license allows a person to carry a firearm in some public spaces, while an FSC merely allows a person to purchase a firearm for private use.

This is an area of law that is actively litigated both within the state and nationally. In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court established a new approach to evaluating firearms restrictions, holding that a court should uphold a restriction on someone’s right to bear arms only if there is a tradition of similar regulation in U.S. history. (NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) 142 S.Ct. 2111.) The Supreme Court refined the Bruen standard somewhat in its subsequent decision in U.S. v. Rahimi (2024) 602 S.Ct. 680, but the court’s approach to firearms restrictions remains uncertain.

Analysis Prepared by: Annika Carlson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081

Date of Hearing: April 8, 2025

Counsel: Dustin Weber

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON

Nick Schultz, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:

Author:() – As Ver:

As Proposed to be Amended in Committee

SUMMARY: Requires personal firearm importers to obtain a valid firearm safety certificate (FSC), makes it a misdemeanor for that personal firearm importer to bring a firearm into this state without obtaining a valid FSC within 60 days, and requires any applicant for a firearm safety certificate to complete a training course. Specifically, this bill:

1. Requires a personal firearms importer, within 60 days of bringing a firearm into the state, to obtain a valid FSC, as specified, and include a copy of the valid FSC within the report.
2. Makes it a misdemeanor to bring any firearm, except an antique firearm, into this state without obtaining a valid FSC within 60 days of bringing that firearm into this state if the person is required to report the importation of the firearm to the Department of Justice (DOJ), as defined.
3. Provides that it is not a misdemeanor if a person purchases, receives, sells, delivers, loans, or transfers any firearm, except an antique firearm, without a valid FSC if evidence of that violation arises only as the result of the person applying for a FSC after the expiration of the 60-day period.
4. Establishes that an applicant for a FSC shall have completed a training course that meets all of the following conditions:
   1. The training shall be no less than eight hours in length, including at least one hour of live shooting.
   2. The training shall include instruction on all of the following:
      1. Federal and state laws related to possession, transportation, and storage of firearms.
      2. The importance of secure storage to prevent unauthorized access and use of firearms.
      3. Safe firearm handling and fundamentals of shooting firearms.
      4. Risks of firearms and causes of accidents.
      5. How to legally relinquish or transfer a firearm.
      6. State laws pertaining to self-defense and techniques for conflict resolution.
      7. Mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence.
   3. The training shall be taught and supervised by defined firearms instructors certified by the DOJ.
   4. The live-fire shooting exercises shall take place on a firing range and shall include a demonstration by the applicant of safe handling of firearms and basic firearm shooting proficiency.
5. States that the training course requirement does not apply to certain persons, as defined.
6. Provides that the DOJ may promulgate regulations and provide additional information for the implementation of the required training course.
7. Establishes that the Dealers’ Record of Sale Special Account may be used, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for any costs associated with this law’s implementation and ongoing expenses.

EXISTING LAW:

1. Provides that a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (U.S. Const., 2nd Amend.)
   
2. Requires a personal firearms importer to submit to the DOJ a report including information concerning that individual and a description of the firearm in question. (Pen. Code, § 27560, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
   
3. Authorizes DOJ to request photographs of the firearm to determine if the firearm is a generally prohibited weapon, assault weapon, or machinegun, or is otherwise prohibited. (Pen. Code, § 27560, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
   
4. Prohibits a person from furnishing a fictitious name or address, knowingly furnish any incorrect information, or knowingly omit any information required to be provided in this report. (Pen. Code, § 27560, subd. (a)(1)(A).)
5. Requires DOJ to establish a fee for submission of the personal firearms importer form and an additional fee for each additional firearm, but prohibits fee from exceeding the reasonable and actual costs of processing the form. (Pen. Code, § 27560, subd. (a)(2).)
6. States that it is a misdemeanor if a person purchases or receives any firearm, except an antique firearm, without a valid FSC, except that in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used. (Pen. Code, § 31615, subds. (a)(1) & (b).)
7. States that it is misdemeanor if a person sells, delivers, loans, or transfers any firearm, except an antique firearm, to any person who does not have a valid firearm safety certificate, except that in the case of a handgun, an unexpired handgun safety certificate may be used. (Pen. Code, § 31615, subds. (a)(2) & (b).)

FISCAL EFFECT:

Unknown

COMMENTS:

1. Author's Statement: According to the author, “California has one of the lowest rates of firearm deaths in the country in part due to its preventative efforts and strong gun safety laws. AB 1187 continues to strengthen our state’s common-sense firearm safety laws by ensuring that all new firearm carriers complete an 8-hour training that includes a live-fire shooting exercise so that all carriers in California are properly trained and handle a firearm safely. This bill also addresses a loophole in current law by requiring firearm carriers that move to California to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 60 days, consistent with all residents in California who purchase a firearm. 

“AB 1187 will strengthen our collective handling of firearms and encourage responsible gun ownership, while making our communities safer.”

1. Effect of the Bill: This bill would make it a misdemeanor for a person who “brings any firearm, except an antique firearm, into this state without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 60 days of bringing that firearm into this state.” While the bill does include a safe harbor provision that precludes late reporting being used as evidence to prove a misdemeanor charge that “arises only as the result of the person applying for a firearm safety certificate after the expiration of the 60-day period,” to subject someone to jail time for failing to report possession of a lawful good may not be proportional. It is unclear whether 60 days is even sufficient for a new resident to manage the move and to secure an FSC, inclusive of this bill’s new requirements.

A standard misdemeanor in California is punishable by imprisonment in county jail for up to six months and a fine of up to $1,000. (Pen. Code, § 19.) The punitive nature of the penalty is potentially magnified when it is considered that this law likely could only be applied to new California residents, from out-of-state, who would not be necessarily familiar with our firearms laws and who would be attempting to manage a significant life event. For comparison, other standard misdemeanors in California include drug possession (Heal. & Saf. Code, § 11350), drunk in public (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (f)), indecent Exposure (Pen. Code, § 314), petty theft (Pen. Code, § 484), prostitution (Pen. Code, § 647, subd. (b)), shoplifting (Pen. Code, § 459.5), and some trespassing violations (Pen. Code, § 602). It is debatable whether this bill would be treating like violations alike by making a reporting violation a misdemeanor.

The inclusion of a potential $1,000 fine is also of questionable deterrent effect. There is reliable evidence showing increased penalties generally fails to deter criminal behavior.^[1] Data shows greater deterrent effects as the likelihood of being caught and the perception that one will get caught rises.^[2] In contrast, the act of punishment and the length of punishment largely do not increase deterrence.^[3]

Criminal fines and the collection of those fines is commonly misunderstood. Criminal fines rapidly balloon into unpayable amounts for most of the population, which create downstream economic consequences for impacted individuals and society. The judicial branch reported that $8.6 billion in fines and fees remained unpaid at the end of 2019-20.^[4]

With evidence also showing that increasing criminal fines increases felony recidivism, specifically among a population that historically has faced inexplicably disproportionate punishment in the criminal justice system,^[5] it remains questionable whether increasing criminal punishment, as this bill does, would produce the desired impact.

1. Firearm Safety Certificates (FSC) vs. Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) Permits: This bill would require new residents to report bringing in firearms to California DOJ with a copy of their FSC. This bill would also significantly expand the training requirements needed to acquire an FSC.

FSC’s are required for many actions a person undertakes as part of firearm ownership in California. This includes, among other acts, purchase, transport, and loans.^[6] The current requirement to obtain an FSC in California involves scoring 75% or greater on a 25-question multiple choice exam issued by a DOJ-certified instructor.^[7] This bill would expand that requirement to eight hours of in person instruction, with numerous defined areas of instruction, and one hour of live fire shooting. The defined areas of instruction under this bill are: federal and state laws related to possession, transportation, and storage of firearms; the importance of secure storage to prevent unauthorized access and use of firearms; safe firearm handling and fundamentals of shooting firearms; risks of firearms and causes of accidents; how to legally relinquish or transfer a firearm; state laws pertaining to self-defense and techniques for conflict resolution; and mental health, suicide prevention, and domestic violence issues associated with firearms and firearm violence.

An FSC is valid for five years from the date of issuance.^[8] The stated intent of the California Legislature in enacting the current FSC law is for persons who obtain firearms to have a basic familiarity with those firearms, including, but not limited to, the safe handling and storage of those firearms.^[9] A firearms dealer cannot deliver a firearm unless the person receiving the firearm presents a valid FSC, which can be obtained by passing a test on firearm safety.^[10] Prior to taking delivery of a firearm from a licensed firearms dealer, the purchaser/recipient must also successfully perform a safe handling demonstration with that firearm.^[11]

Compare this bill’s requirements to our state’s requirements to acquire a concealed carry weapons permit, which generally allows licensees to publicly carry a loaded firearm in non-prohibited places. To get a CCW license, which is valid for two years, new license applicants must complete a training course that meets all of the following minimum criteria: the course shall be no less than 16 hours in length, the course shall include instruction on firearm safety, firearm handling, shooting technique, safe storage, legal methods to transport firearms and securing firearms in vehicles, laws governing where permit holders may carry firearms, laws regarding the permissible use of a firearm, and laws regarding the permissible use of lethal force in self-defense. The course shall also include a component, no less than one hour in length, on mental health and mental health resources, shall be taught and supervised by firearms instructors certified by the DOJ, shall require students to pass a written examination to demonstrate their understanding of the covered topics; and the course shall include live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range and shall include a demonstration by the applicant of safe handling of, and shooting proficiency with, each firearm that the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry. (Pen. Code, § 26165, subd. (a)(1)-(6).) CCW renewal applicants, however, must complete only an eight-hour course, inclusive of most of the new licensee criteria. (Pen. Code, § 26165, subd. (e.)

While the requirements for obtaining an FSC and CCW are distinct for initial applicants, this bill could result in requiring more live fire training from an FSC applicant than from a CCW renewal applicant. For example, while this bill would require one hour of live fire training, the City of West Sacramento requires scoring 80% in a shooting demonstration.^[12] The training required to acquire an FSC under this bill would include comparable training requirements as those for a CCW renewal.

1. Constitutional Analysis: To justify a law or regulation that purports to place restrictions on protected Second Amendment conduct, the government must demonstrate the law is “consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.” (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, (2022) 597 U.S. 1.) A firearms regulation is constitutional under the Second Amendment if the government establishes the proposed law is “relevantly similar” to historical laws, regulations, and traditions. (Ibid.) Relevantly similar means laws that have historical analogues, how the proposed law comparatively burdens a person’s Second Amendment rights, and how the proposed law is comparatively justified. (Ibid.)

This bill requires reporting from any unexempted personal firearm importer bringing a firearm into the state. The bill also does not on its face appear unduly burdensome. A single reporting requirement does not seem to be overly burdensome in contravention of Bruen’s advisement. (See Bruen, supra, at fn. 9.) Yet, even without specific examples, the national historical tradition for regulating purchases and ownership of a firearm is likely not as robust or comparatively burdened as the historical tradition regulating carrying in public. Historical evidence of surety laws, which burdened the right to public carry. Establishing relevantly similar historical examples to justify the former is likely more difficult than for the latter. Therefore, were we to create two equally burdensome schemes gives at least a somewhat greater probability of the scheme with the less robust tradition being found unconstitutional.

It does not appear that AB 1187’s new FSC scheme is nearly as burdensome as acquiring an initial CCW license, anyway, but these constitutional boundaries are not precisely fixed. As a result, while this bill is more likely than not constitutional, whether this bill would violate the Second Amendment post-Bruen is unclear.

1. Additional Considerations: There has been some concern expressed over whether this bill would require out-of-state hunters coming to visit California to hunt to get an FSC. As currently constructed, this bill appears to exempt out of state hunters from its provisions, since under this bill there would be no requirement to report bringing the firearm into California and there would no requirement to get an FSC, assuming two things: 1) the Section 17000 personal firearms importer definition applies to the bill, and 2) the out of state hunters have a hunting license.

If AB 1187 uses the Section 17000 definition of personal firearms importer, then presumably out of state hunters would not be considered personal firearms importers because they are not coming into California to establish residency. The out of state hunters are not likely to be considered to be establishing residency because they do not fit the definition of coming into California for the purposes of the state being their “state of domicile” under Vehicle Code section 12505. Because they are not residents or expected residents, they likely could not be defined as personal firearms importers as a result of not fitting all of the criteria under the law for being a personal firearms importer. Because they are not likely personal firearms importers they would not be subject to AB 1187’s FSC provisions, as currently written.

Additionally, this bill provides that it does not apply to persons “properly identified” pursuant to Section 31700. Section 31700(c) states that “a person, 18 years of age or older, validly identified, who has been issued a valid hunting license that is unexpired is exempt from the firearm safety certificate requirement, except as to handguns.” Since out of state hunters likely could be properly identified under Section 31700 (and assuming, of course, they have their hunting license), then they would be exempt from the FSC requirement for bringing firearms into California. Since they would not be required to submit a report to DOJ, they likewise would not need to either adhere to the bill’s reporting requirement or secure an FSC.

1. Committee Amendments: The amendments to this bill would carve out the misdemeanor penalty as applied to those who do not meet the reporting requirement, clarify that the Penal Code Section 17000 definition of personal firearms importer is the definition applied in this bill, and makes technical, clarifying changes to other language in the bill.
2. Argument in Support: According to the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), “On behalf of the California District Attorneys Association (CDAA), I am writing in support of your measure, AB 1187, which seeks to ensure the safe handling of firearms by requiring that personal firearm importers and those who bring firearms into the state obtain a valid firearm safety certificate and by also requiring that an applicant for a firearm safety certificate on or after July 1, 2027 complete a training no less than eight hours in length that includes amongst other things, instruction on firearm safety and handling and live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range. This law aligns with existing law requiring those purchasing or receiving a firearm to possess a firearm safety certificate and is aimed at ensuring public safety through these measures. For these reasons, we strongly support AB 1187.”
   
3. Argument in Opposition: According to the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), “AB1187 as written is demonstrative of an Author not understanding the process that exists in California to purchase a firearm or transfer ownership. Currently the law guides the purchaser to take a Firearms Safety Certificate test based on the June 2020 California Department of Justice (CADOJ) Firearms Safety Certificate (FSC) Study Guide. The CADOJ requires extensive firearms knowledge and Federal Firearms License Dealers that administer the test provide information on Suicide prevention, safe firearms storage laws, provide demonstrations already in the status quo.

“The individual under this law would be required to take an 8-hour course and a 1-hour live fire course prior to receiving their FSC as an applicant. It is against the law to obtain a firearm without an FSC. The author is creating a scenario where a first-time purchaser will be unable to complete the firearms range training due to the lack of a firearm.

“The FSC is not a license it is proof of passing a CADOJ test required to purchase, transfer, or receive a firearm. The legislature is signaling out a constitutional right to intimidate firearms ownership through warnings that are already being delivered. The Author asserts it’s to save lives. The question then must be asked why is the legislature not demanding every citizen get trained about the risks of medical malpractice which take more than ten times the lives of Californians?”

1. Related Legislation:
   1. SB 15 (Blakespear), would authorize the DOJ to remove a person from the centralized list who has willfully failed to comply with specified licensing requirements or who, among other things, failed to remedy violations discovered as a result of an inspection within 90 days of the inspection. SB 15 is set to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   2. SB 248 (Rubio), would require the DOJ to mail to any person who notifies the department of a firearm transaction a letter that includes certain information relevant to firearm ownership, such as information on how to legally transfer or relinquish a firearm and resources regarding gun violence restraining orders, among others. SB 248 is set to be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
   3. AB 1092 (Castillo), would extend the concealed carry weapon license window from two to four years, beginning on January 1, 2027. AB 1092 failed passage in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
   4. AB 1006 (Ramos), would include additional specified acts that would deem an applicant as a disqualified person, including providing any inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with the application or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application for a new license or a license renewal, the applicant has been charged with certain offenses. AB 1006 is set to be heard today in the Assembly Public Safety Committee.
2. Prior Legislation:
   1. SB 1002 (Blakespear), Chapter 526, Statutes of 2024, expands prohibitions for the ownership, possession, custody, or control of ammunition. Requires a person subject to the prohibition, because they are a danger to themselves or others as a result of a mental health disorder, to relinquish a firearm, other deadly weapon, or ammunition they own, possess, or control within 72 hours of discharge from a facility.
   2. SB 241 (Min), Chapter 250, Statutes of 2023, requires a licensee and any employees that handle firearms to annually complete specified training. This law requires the DOJ, on or before February 1, 2026, to develop and implement a training course, as specified, including a testing certification component.
   3. AB 355 (Alanis), Chapter 235, Statutes of 2023, exempts from the assault weapons loan prohibition the loaning of an assault weapon to, or the possession of an assault weapon by, a person enrolled in the course of basic training prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, while engaged in firearms training and being supervised by a firearms instructor.
   4. AB 1420 (Berman), Chapter 245, Statutes of 2023, authorizes the DOJ to conduct inspections and assess a fine for any violation of provisions relating to regulation of specified licenses and for violations of specified provisions regulating the sale of secondhand firearms.
   5. SB 1253 (Gonzales), of the 2023-2024 Legislative Session, would have prohibited bringing any firearm, except an antique firearm, into this state as a personal firearm importer, as defined, without obtaining a valid firearm safety certificate within 120 days of bringing that firearm into this state.

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

Brady California
Brady Campaign
Building Opportunities for Self-sufficiency
California District Attorneys Association
California Emergency Nurses Association
California Medical Association (CMA)
Consumer Protection Policy Center/usd School of Law
Griffin Dix, Brady Oakland/alameda Chapter
Neveragainca
San Diegans for Gun Violence Prevention
Wave

Oppose

California Rifle and Pistol Association, INC.
Delta Waterfowl
Gun Owners of California, INC.
National Rifle Association - Institute for Legislative Action

2 private individuals

Analysis Prepared by:

1. Five Things About Deterrence (May 2016) National Institute of Justice <https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/247350.pdf> [as of Apr. 2, 2025]. ↑

2. Ibid. ↑

3. Ibid. ↑

4. Ibid. ↑

5. Overview of Criminal Fine and Fee System, Legislative Analyst’s Office (May 13, 2021) <https://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Detail/4427> [as of Apr. 2, 2025]. ↑

6. Firearm Safety Certificate Program Frequently Asked Questions, California Department of Justice < https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/fscfaqs> [as of Apr. 2, 2025]. ↑

7. Firearms Safety Certificate Study Guide, California Department of Justice (June 2020) <https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscsg.pdf > [as of Apr. 2 , 2025]. ↑

8. Ibid. ↑

9. Firearm Safety Certificate Manual for Firearms Dealers and DOJ Certified Instructors, California Department of Justice (June 2020) < https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/hscman.pdf > [as of Apr. 2, 2025]. ↑

10. Ibid. ↑

11. Ibid. ↑

12. California Concealed Carry Weapon Requirements, City of West Sacramento <https://www.cityofwestsacramento.org/government/departments/police/ca-ccw-requirements> [as of Apr. 2, 2025]. ↑