The Ninth Circuit upheld California’s law requiring gun stores to run 24/7 audio and video recording, rejecting a First-, Fourth-, and Fifth-Amendment challenge.
Sources checked September 14, 2026. Educational information only, not legal advice.
| What changed | Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a challenge to California’s gun-store recording mandate; dealers must keep the system in place. |
| Effective | Already in effect (SB 1384, 2022); the decision upholds it. |
| Applies to | Federally licensed firearms dealers, including home-based FFLs operating as a business. |
| Statutory basis | California Penal Code section 26806 (enacted by SB 1384, Stats. 2022). |
What happened
On Friday, August 28, 2026, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in Richards v. Newsom and, in the words of the California Department of Justice, the court “affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging California Penal Code section 26806, rejecting claims that the law violates the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.” The law, enacted by Senate Bill 1384 (2022, Min), requires federally licensed firearm dealers — including home-based dealers acting as a business — to maintain a video and audio recording system on their business premises, recorded and retained for investigation of firearm theft, straw purchases, and other crimes.
The plaintiffs — firearms dealers, gun-rights organizations, and private individuals — challenged the mandate after the district court dismissed their first amended complaint, then appealed. The three-judge panel (Judges Koh and de Alba, with Judge Lee) sided with the state on the pleadings as they were briefed, leaving the door open for a future, more fully argued challenge. The California Department of Justice defended the statute in federal court.
What it means for you
For Californians who run or work at a gun store, the requirement to operate continuous audio-video recording at the business, retained for investigation, stands. The decision does not add a new obligation and does not reach private owners of firearms in their homes; it reaches the dealer’s premises as a business. What to do practically: there is nothing new to change if you already comply with section 26806. Treat this as a confirmation that the mandate is here to stay for the foreseeable term, not a new rule. Dates for any further litigation are TBD and should be watched on the court’s docket.
The official source
Read the primary sources rather than a summary of them, including this one.
- Attorney General Bonta Secures Ninth Circuit Victory Defending California’s Commonsense Gun Store Safety Measures Official California DOJ press release (Aug 28, 2026) announcing the Richards v. Newsom ruling.
Discuss
Update log
- September 14, 2026 Published from the California DOJ press release on Richards v. Newsom by CA2A Newsroom.
The Docket, by email
Skip the forums. Get the change and the statute behind it.
A bill passes, a case turns, the roster changes. No weekly filler, no sales. Unsubscribe in one click.
Only when something changes. Your address is never shared.