What are California's Most Hotly Contested Gun Laws?
California maintains some of the nation’s strictest firearm regulations, many of which have faced repeated constitutional challenges since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision. These laws are routinely litigated by pro-Second Amendment groups and private plaintiffs who argue they lack historical analogues and infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Whether you’re looking for a Gun lawyer, gun rights attorney, or 2nd amendment lawyers to navigate these issues, understanding the most frequently contested statutes is essential for clients seeking to protect their constitutional rights.
These strict gun laws have had no demonstrable effect on crime or gun violence but the laws continue to exist. Some laws are truly crazy. San Francisco forces people with concealed carry permits to use only fully jacketed ammunition. Hence the danger of penetration and accidental injury in a crowded city is worsened. Their logic is illogical. They want the rounds to be less lethal - to the criminals.
Here are the California gun laws that 2nd Amendment lawyers challenge most often on behalf of their clients:
1. The Assault Weapons Ban (Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act)
California’s definition of “assault weapons” under Penal Code §§ 30510 and 30515 bans semi-automatic rifles and handguns with certain features (pistol grips, folding stocks, flash suppressors, etc.). The ban prohibits manufacture, sale, importation, and possession of these firearms.
The Supreme Court AR-15 cases and all assault type weapon cases turn on several key issues. Is there truly a difference between an assault firearm and an ordinary firearm? Or is a gun a gun and self defense is either real or invented. If is real does it matter which type of gun one uses to defend himself or others? The idea that banning all weapons of a certain type will stop a lunatic from shooting normal people supposes that a ban will vanish all illegal guns and that we can stop an armed lunatic with a slingshot. David and Goliath references aside, in reality the bad guys will be well armed and the good guys are systematically being disarmed.
This law has been one of the most aggressively litigated. In Miller v. Bonta, a federal district judge twice ruled the ban unconstitutional, finding no historical tradition supporting a feature-based prohibition on commonly owned arms like the AR-15. The Ninth Circuit has kept the ban in place through stays while appeals continue (held pending related magazine cases). Plaintiffs, supported by organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation, argue the statute criminalizes millions of lawful firearms without precedent.
2. The Large-Capacity Magazine Ban
Penal Code § 32310 prohibits possession, manufacture, sale, or transfer of magazines holding more than 10 rounds. This law has generated more court battles than almost any other California firearm statute.
In Duncan v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld the ban in March 2025, ruling that large-capacity magazines are not protected “arms” under Bruen or, alternatively, that the ban fits within historical traditions of regulating dangerous weapons. A petition for Supreme Court review remains pending as of late 2025. Earlier district court rulings had struck the law down, leading to temporary “Freedom Week” periods when high-capacity magazines could be legally acquired. Gun lawyer teams continue to press the issue, arguing the ban leaves law-abiding citizens defenseless.
3. Open-Carry Restrictions in Urban Counties
California bans open carry of loaded firearms in counties with populations over 200,000 (covering roughly 95 % of the state’s residents). In Baird v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit ruled on January 2, 2026, that this prohibition violates the Second Amendment, finding no historical tradition supporting a blanket urban open-carry ban. The decision has already begun reshaping carry rights across most of California, though the state may seek further review. This recent victory highlights how gun rights attorney advocates leverage Bruen’s text-history-tradition test to dismantle longstanding restrictions.
4. Concealed-Carry “Sensitive Places” and Licensing Hurdles
If someone misuses the display of a gun Penal Code Section 417 (a) (1) makes it a crime. Section 471 says that - Every person who, except in self-defense, in the presence of any other person, draws or exhibits any deadly weapon whatsoever, other than a firearm, in a rude, angry, or threatening manner, or who in any manner, unlawfully uses a deadly weapon other than a firearm in any fight or quarrel is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than 30 days.-
Why then does the state have a ban on even peaceful open carry? Is there any historical precedent for making people hide their guns?
Following Bruen, California expanded “sensitive places” where even valid concealed-carry permit (CCW) holders cannot carry firearms—parks, playgrounds, bars, restaurants, places of worship, and more (Penal Code § 26230 and related statutes). Cases like May v. Bonta and the combined Wolford v. Lopez challenge these broad zones as unconstitutional. Additional litigation targets residency requirements, psychological evaluations, and processing delays for CCW permits. These suits remain active in the Ninth Circuit and district courts. 2nd amendment lawyers frequently argue that the sheer number of prohibited locations effectively nullifies the shall-issue CCW system.
5. Ammunition Background-Check Requirements
California requires a background check and fee for every ammunition purchase (Penal Code §§ 30312–30370). In Rhode v. Bonta, a federal district court permanently enjoined these requirements post-Bruen, but the state has appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs contend the system functions as an unconstitutional tax and burden on the core right to acquire ammunition. This case continues to draw significant attention from gun rights attorney practices across the state.
Other Frequently Challenged Provisions are the Under-21 Sales Restrictions on centerfire semi-automatic rifles See the case called Chavez v. Bonta
Then there are the Handgun Safety Roster and semiautomatic handgun restrictions: Ongoing challenges are pending in the case called Abrera v. Newsom and similar cases.
Newer laws, such as the three-firearms-per-month purchase limit (effective 2026) and gun-violence restraining order expansions, are already attracting fresh lawsuits.
California’s Attorney General continues to defend these statutes vigorously, often obtaining stays that keep restrictions in force during appeals. Meanwhile, Gun lawyer, gun rights attorney, and 2nd amendment lawyers affiliated with the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, National Rifle Association, and Second Amendment Foundation file coordinated challenges that have produced notable wins—most recently the open-carry ruling—and continue to push cases toward the U.S. Supreme Court.
If you live in California and believe your Second Amendment rights are being infringed, consulting experienced counsel is the first step. These high-profile cases demonstrate that persistent litigation can force meaningful change even in one of the country’s most restrictive states. Stay informed, know your rights, and consider reaching out to qualified professionals who specialize in this complex and evolving area of law. If you have legal issues, Call 2nd Amendment lawyer Daniel Horowitz at (925) 283-1863)
