Policy Text
Professional Standards Division ISSUED: 12/6/22
Weapons Law Update
California la w pertaining to weapons charges, particularly firearms, can be complicated and even
confusing. Additionally, these laws frequently change through new legislation and landmark case
decisions. California currently has several firearms laws under review and cannot be enforced due
to temporary injunctions. This training bulletin will outline several recent changes to the law as
well as pending court cases related to firearms.
LANDMARK CASES
Heller v District of Columbia (2008) - The Distri ct of Columbia attempted to ban ownership of
handguns and require long guns be kept disassembled. The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) found
that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for traditionally
lawful purposes. This case was specific to the possession of a firearm within the home and did
not address if citizens had a right to carry firearms outside of the home . This decision was specific
to federal law and did not clarify if it applied to state and local laws.
McDonald v City of Chicago (2010) – Chicago banned the possession of handguns and
restricted long guns, similar to the circumstances in Heller . SCOTUS found that the 2nd
Amendment was enforceable against states by way of the Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment. This meant the 2nd Amendment superseded state or local law s which infringed on
the right to keep and bear arms , applying the Heller decision to all levels of government .
NYSRPA v Bruen (2022) – The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association su ed the state of New
York over their “good cause” restriction on concealed carry permits. Many states passed laws so
that they “may issue” a concealed carry permit but could deny applicants who did not show a good
enough cause. Other states followed “shall issue” policies unless the state could show a valid
reason for denying someone’s application. Self-defense and living in a high -crime area did not
fulfill the “good cause” requirement for a CCW permit in New York. SCOTUS found that the 2nd
Amendment di d, in fact, protect the right of citizens to carry firearms outside of the home for the
reason of self -defense or other common, lawful purposes . This eliminated the ability to use “good
cause” to arbitrarily deny permits and set the “shall issue” standard for the entire country.
Additionally , this case challenged the “two-part test” by which 2nd Amendment cases had
previously been judged. This test considered 1) if the regulated conduct was protected by the 2nd
Amendment and 2) if the benefit of the restriction outweighed the burden created. In essence, a
Tom DaRé
, CHIEF OF POLICE
NUMBER:
2022
-
10
TRAINING
BULLETIN
violation of the 2nd Amendment’s text (failing step one ) could be justified if the state could make
a sufficient claim the benefit outweighed the infringement of the Constitution (passing step two ).
Bruen did away with this two -part test and established a singular examination of whether a
restriction was consistent with the history and tradition of our country . This means, if a restriction
was not common practice circa 1791, it likely infringes on the 2nd Amendment. The impact of this
new rule will be widespread across firearms legislation, as numerous case decisions were settled
using part two of the two -part test. Many of these decisions will now be re -visited and judged
according to the Bruen standard.
LARGE -CAPACITY MAGAZINES
California has restricted the import, sale, and manufacture of large -capacity magazines (defined
in CPC 16740 as any magazine holding more than 10 rounds ) since 2000 under CPC 32310.
In 2016, Proposition 63 passed and attempted to implement a ban on the possession of large -
capacity magazines. This was covered in CPC 32310(c). This law was set to take effect in July
2017, however; the court case Duncan v Bon ta challenges this law. Duncan was recently sent
back to the originating federal district court for re -consideration under the Bruen standard. There
is a likelihood ALL restriction s of large -capacity magazines in CA will be deemed unconstitutional.
At the time of this training bulletin, there is a temporary injunction preventing the enforcement of
CPC 32310(c). Simple possession of a large -capacity magazine is not arrestable under this
injunction . Further, an earlier decision by the district court allowed for any magazine to b e legally
purchased and imported into California for approximately a one week period in 2017 (commonly
referred to as “freedom week”) . A violation of CPC 32310 would require we have evidence of the
suspect importing, manufacturing, or selling/offering for sale such magazines during the
timeframe when it was not legal to do so.
If you find someone in possession of a large -capacity magazine , determine whether or not
they are a firearm -prohibited person because you may still have a law violation . CPC 16150 (b)
defines ammunition: “As used in subdivision (a) of Section 30305 and in Section 30306,
“ammunition” includes, but is not limited to, any bullet, cartridge, magazine , clip, speed