The California legislature has enacted laws that circumvent the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). These rulings affirmed an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and established that firearm regulations must be consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation in the U.S.
Despite this, California has passed or maintained a variety of restrictive gun laws, including:
May-Issue Permitting (Pre-Bruen) – Before Bruen, California enforced a "good cause" requirement for concealed carry permits, making it nearly impossible for many residents to obtain one. After Bruen struck down such discretionary systems, California replaced it with new hurdles, such as extensive training, fees, and subjective "good moral character" requirements.
Sensitive Places Expansion – Following Bruen, California attempted to declare large swaths of public space as "sensitive places" where carrying firearms is prohibited, including parks, public transportation, and places where alcohol is served—despite Bruen making it clear that such blanket restrictions are unconstitutional.
Handgun Roster & Microstamping – California maintains a restrictive "approved handgun roster," which effectively bans most modern handguns from being sold due to an impossible-to-comply-with microstamping requirement (which no firearm manufacturer currently meets). This deprives Californians of access to widely available, commonly owned firearms.
Assault Weapons Ban – Despite repeated legal challenges and court rulings questioning the constitutionality of California's "assault weapon" and high-capacity magazine bans, the state continues to defend these restrictions, arguing they are consistent with historical regulations—even though millions of such firearms are lawfully owned nationwide.
Ammunition Background Checks – California imposes background checks for every ammunition purchase, something unique to the state. This burdens law-abiding gun owners without clear evidence of crime prevention benefits.
New Restrictions Post-Bruen – The state passed SB2, which imposes additional carry restrictions, increasing costs and bureaucratic hurdles for permit applicants, and expands “sensitive places” designations.
California's approach has led to multiple lawsuits challenging these laws as unconstitutional under Bruen’s standard. Many legal experts argue that the state is deliberately resisting the Supreme Court’s rulings, forcing gun owners and advocacy groups into prolonged legal battles to restore Second Amendment rights.
Several states with strict gun control policies have attempted to circumvent Heller and Bruen by enacting laws that impose significant restrictions on firearm ownership and carry, despite the Supreme Court’s rulings. These states have adopted similar strategies to California, such as expanding “sensitive places”, imposing excessive permitting requirements, and restricting the sale of firearms and ammunition.
Here are the most notable examples:
1. New York:
Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA): After Bruen struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry permits, the state responded by enacting the CCIA, which imposed strict training requirements, increased fees, and declared large areas as “sensitive places” (such as Times Square, public transportation, and houses of worship). Legal Challenge: Several provisions of the CCIA have been challenged in Antonyuk v. Nigrelli, with some restrictions blocked by lower courts, but the case remains under litigation.
2. New Jersey:
Gun Safety Bills (A4769 & A4770): New Jersey passed laws increasing permit requirements, raising fees, mandating liability insurance for gun owners, and creating a broad list of “sensitive places.”
3. Maryland:
SB1 and HB824 (Gun Safety Act of 2023): Maryland reacted to Bruen by making it harder to obtain concealed carry permits and banning firearms in nearly all public spaces, including restaurants, public gatherings, and even private property without explicit permission.
4. Hawaii:
Sensitive Places Law: Like other states, Hawaii designated many public places as off-limits for firearms, including beaches, restaurants, and public transit.
5. Massachusetts:
Gun Law Overhaul Bill (2023): The state increased training requirements, restricted public carry, and expanded background checks. Legal Challenge: Gun rights groups have filed lawsuits arguing these laws violate Bruen, but the courts have yet to issue final rulings.
6. Illinois:
Assault Weapons Ban: Illinois enacted a sweeping ban on “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines in 2023.
Each of these states has tried to impose new restrictions that, in practice, make it difficult or impossible for law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. Many of these laws are being actively challenged in court, and the outcomes will likely shape future Second Amendment jurisprudence.