Beginning January 1, 2024, a new California law requires all licensed firearm dealers to have a digital surveillance system on their business premises. Among other things, the law requires that the system capture audio for locations inside the premises and retain copies of such footage and audio for a period of one year. Coupled with ATF’s recent proposed rule which would dramatically expand the number of private individuals “engaged in the business of dealing firearms”, California’s law would impose an all-seeing eye not just in retail locations but in the homes of thousands of individuals.
California’s law mounts a malicious attack on the freedom of association and violates the right to speak anonymously. By requiring video and audio surveillance, California will chill the ability of individuals to engage in the free exchange of ideas, absent government intrusion. As a result, individuals will be less likely to speak in support of the Second Amendment or criticize California’s expansive gun control regime for fear of potential retaliation at some unknown point in time. Additionally, individuals who operate as dealers in their home now are faced with the reality that California will have an Orwellian-level view into their homes – a reality that offends constitutional protections. Lastly, the new requirements will likely create the de-facto end to many gun shows which are held on premises that will not be able to support the complicated logistical requirements of setting up video and audio surveillance for each event.
On December 19, 2023, the Second Amendment Foundation, joined by four civil rights organizations, two businesses and three individuals, filed suit against California Governor Gavin Newsom, California Attorney General Robert Bonta and Doe employees. The lawsuit seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction and declaratory relief that the challenged law violates the Plaintiffs’ First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
To access all of the case documents, please visit the docket.
Case Media
Case Team: Donald Kilmer
Recent Docket Activity
May 7th, 2026
RESPONSE to Citation of Supplemental Authorities filed by Appellee Gavin Newsom, Appellee Rob Bonta. [Entered: 05/07/2026 04:50 PM]
April 30th, 2026
CITATION of Supplemental Authorities filed by Appellant Gun Owners of California, Inc., Appellant Gun Owners of America, Inc., Appellant Gun Owners Foundation. [Entered: 04/30/2026 11:22 AM]
February 2nd, 2026
ARGUED AND SUBMITTED to Kenneth K. LEE, Lucy H. KOH, Ana DE ALBA. Audio and video recordings of the argument are available on the court’s website at https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/. [Entered: 02/02/2026 11:53 AM]
January 5th, 2026
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by Anna Barvir for Appellant Adam Richards, Appellant Gerald Clark, Appellant Jesse Harris, Appellant Gun Owners of California, Inc., Appellant Gun Owners of America, Inc., Appellant Gun Owners Foundation, Appellant California Rifle & Pistol Association, Appellant On Target Indoor Shooting Range, LLC, Appellant Gaalswyk Enterprises, Inc., Appellant Jeffrey Vandermeulen. Hearing in Pasadena - Courtroom 1 in Pasadena, on 2/2/2026 9:00:00 AM. Filer argument time: By myself. . Special accommodations: No. Filer admission status: I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. [Entered: 01/05/2026 04:36 PM]
January 5th, 2026
ACKNOWLEDGMENT of hearing notice filed by Anne P. Bellows for Appellee Gavin Newsom, Appellee Rob Bonta. Hearing in Pasadena - Courtroom 1 in Pasadena, on 2/2/2026 9:00:00 AM. Filer argument time: By myself. . Special accommodations: No. Filer admission status: I certify that I am admitted to practice before this Court. [Entered: 01/05/2026 04:59 PM]
November 23rd, 2025
NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT on Monday, February 2, 2026 - 09:00 A.M. - Courtroom 1 - Scheduled Location: Pasadena CA View the Oral Argument Calendar for your case here. NOTE: Although your case is currently scheduled for oral argument, the panel may decide to submit the case on the briefs instead. See Fed. R. App. P. 34. Absent further order of the court, if the court does determine that oral argument is required in this case, you are expected to appear in person at the Courthouse. If an in person appearance would pose a hardship, you must file a motion for permission to appear remotely by video, using ACMS filing type Motion to Appear Remotely for Oral Argument. Such a motion must be filed within 7 days of this notice, absent exigent circumstances. Please note that if you do file a motion to appear remotely, the court strongly prefers video over telephone appearance. Therefore, if you wish to appear remotely by telephone you will need to justify that request in your motion and receive explicit permission to do so. Be sure to review the GUIDELINES for important information about your hearing. If you are the specific attorney or self-represented party who will be arguing, use the ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF HEARING NOTICE filing type in ACMS no later than 28 days before the hearing date. No form or other attachment is required. If you will not be arguing, do not file an acknowledgment of hearing notice. [25-693] [Entered: 11/23/2025 12:02 PM]
October 27th, 2025
RESPONSE to notice of case being considered for oral argument filed by Anne P. Bellows. [Entered: 10/27/2025 03:27 PM]
