NEED YOUR VOICE: Member Alert- Proposed Firearm Barrel Eligibility Check Regs (Comment Period)

August 10, 2026

Alert
CRPA

CALIFORNIA RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION MEMBER ACTION ALERT

California DOJ Proposes New Background Check Regulations for Firearm Barrel Purchases

Public Comment Deadline: September 22, 2026, at 5:00 p.m.

WHAT HAPPENED

On August 7, 2026, the California Department of Justice published proposed regulations (Title 11, Division 5, Chapter 11, §§ 4304-4310) to implement SB 704, a law passed by the Legislature in 2025 and codified at Penal Code section 33700. Starting July 1, 2027, no firearm barrel may be sold or transferred in California unless the transaction is completed in person through a licensed firearms dealer who has conducted a DOJ eligibility check on the purchaser.

The DOJ justifies this new regulatory scheme as necessary to prevent “ghost gun” manufacturing, claiming that because other firearm components can be 3D-printed, unregulated barrel sales allow prohibited persons to circumvent California’s background check requirements.

WHAT THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS REQUIRE

The regulations create a two-tier eligibility check system that mirrors the existing ammunition purchase background check system:

Standard Firearm Barrel Eligibility Check (Section 4306): This pathway is available only to purchasers whose personal information already matches an entry in the DOJ’s Automated Firearms System (AFS). The DOJ cross-references the purchaser’s information in AFS with the Prohibited Armed Persons File; if there is no match in the prohibited file, the purchase is approved. If the purchaser does not appear in AFS at all, the transaction is rejected. The dealer must collect and enter the purchaser’s name, date of birth, full residential address, driver’s license or government ID number, and telephone number into the Dealer Record of Sale Entry System (DES). The fee is currently set at $0.00, though the DOJ has expressly stated it may seek to change the fee in future regulations. The statute authorizes fees up to $5.00 per transaction.
Basic Firearm Barrel Eligibility Check (Section 4307): This pathway is for purchasers who do not have an entry in AFS, such as first-time gun buyers or residents whose AFS records contain outdated information. The Basic check requires substantially more personal information, including: name, date of birth, residential address, gender, hair color, eye color, height, weight, driver’s license number, telephone number, U.S. citizenship status, USCIS Number or I-94 (if applicable), place of birth, alias names, and race. The DOJ may take up to 30 days to complete a Basic check. An approved check is valid for only one transaction and expires 30 calendar days from issuance. If the check is denied, the DOJ will notify the purchaser of the reason by U.S. Mail. The fee is also currently $0.00, with the same reservation to increase fees.
Combined Firearm and Barrel Transactions (Section 4308): If a purchaser buys a firearm and a barrel in the same transaction, the standard firearm background check under Penal Code Section 28220 satisfies the barrel eligibility requirement. No separate barrel check is needed. If the purchaser wants to take possession of the barrel before the firearm background check is completed (which can take up to 10 or 30 days), the dealer must initiate a separate barrel eligibility check.
Exempted Individuals (Section 4309): Law enforcement representatives, active military members acting in an official capacity, and federal firearms licensees (except Type 03 Collectors, who face additional requirements) are exempt from the eligibility check. Law enforcement and military representatives must present both a photo credential and written certification from their agency head, issued within the past 30 days, authorizing the specific transaction.

WHY THIS MATTERS: THE AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECK SYSTEM SHOWS WHAT WILL HAPPEN

The proposed barrel eligibility check system is structurally identical to California’s ammunition purchase background check system under Penal Code Section 30370. Both systems use the same DOJ databases (AFS and the Prohibited Armed Persons File), the same DES entry system, the same two-tier check structure, and the same face-to-face dealer requirement. California’s experience with the ammunition system, now extensively documented in federal court proceedings, provides a clear preview of what barrel purchasers should expect.

The 11% False Denial Rate. In Rhode v. Bonta, No. 3:18-cv-00802 (S.D. Cal.), U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez found that Californians are denied the Second Amendment right to buy ammunition for self-defense at least 11% of the time because of problems with the background check system. During the ammunition system’s first seven months of operation in 2019, 101,047 law-abiding gun owners who had established their citizenship and undergone background checks were nevertheless rejected, a 16% rejection rate. These rejections were overwhelmingly caused by database mismatches and technical errors, not because the purchasers were actually prohibited persons.

By the first half of 2023, the rejection rate for Standard ammunition checks still stood at 11%: out of 538,359 background checks, 58,087 individuals were rejected because their information did not match an AFS record, an average of 322 individuals rejected every day.

Denials Are Extremely Difficult to Resolve. Of 7,342 people rejected by a Standard ammunition background check in January 2023 alone, 2,722 individuals (37%) had still not successfully purchased ammunition six months later.

The System Catches Almost No Prohibited Persons. Of approximately 538,359 persons who submitted to background checks in the first half of 2023, only 141 individuals (0.03%) were denied because they actually appeared on the Armed Prohibited Persons System list. In the second half of 2019, approximately 635,000 background checks led to the arrest of only 15 individuals and ultimately produced just six criminal convictions (four felony, two misdemeanor).

A “Byzantine” and Potentially “Abusive” System. Judge Benitez characterized the ammunition eligibility check system as “extensive and ungainly” and identified it as potentially the kind of “abusive permitting scheme” that the Supreme Court flagged in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022).

The Ninth Circuit Agreed. On July 24, 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed Judge Benitez’s ruling, holding that California’s ammunition background check regime facially violates the Second Amendment. The panel credited the 11% false denial rate and found the regime “meaningfully constrains” the right to keep operable arms because it “regulates all ammunition acquisitions by California residents” with no deadline for processing and no alternative means of purchase. The Ninth Circuit granted en banc rehearing on December 1, 2025, vacating the panel opinion, and heard oral arguments on March 25, 2026. The en banc decision remains pending.

THE DOJ IS BUILDING THE SAME BROKEN SYSTEM FOR BARRELS

The DOJ’s own Initial Statement of Reasons concedes that the barrel eligibility check system is “modeled after other existing eligibility checks.” Yet the Department claims it is “not aware of any cost impacts that a representative private person or business would necessarily incur in reasonable compliance with the proposed action.”

This is difficult to square with the documented reality. The same AFS database that produces an 11% false denial rate for ammunition purchases will be the backbone of the barrel eligibility check system. Gun owners whose information does not match an AFS entry, whether because they purchased firearms before California began recording long gun transactions in 2014, because they moved and their address no longer matches, or because of simple data entry errors, will be denied the ability to purchase a replacement barrel for a firearm they already lawfully own.

Those rejected purchasers will then be forced into the Basic check pathway, where they must provide extensive personal information (including race, eye color, hair color, height, weight, and citizenship status), wait up to 30 days for DOJ processing, and receive denial notices by U.S. Mail. The Rhode record shows that 37% of people caught in this situation with ammunition checks were unable to resolve the problem within six months.

The proposed regulations also contain no fee for the eligibility checks today, but the statute authorizes fees up to $5.00 per transaction, and the DOJ has explicitly reserved the right to increase fees “depending on the actual costs and volume of Firearm Barrel Eligibility Checks.” For context, the DOJ raised the Standard ammunition check fee from $1.00 to $5.00 in 2025, a 400% increase.

The DOJ also claims it relied on no “technical, theoretical, or empirical studies, reports, or similar documents” in proposing these regulations, meaning the Department did not analyze its own track record of administering the ammunition check system, the documented 11% false denial rate, or the federal court findings in Rhode v. Bonta before proposing a new system built on the same infrastructure.

HOW TO SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS

The DOJ is accepting public comments through 5:00 p.m. on September 22, 2026. You may submit comments by the following methods:

Email: bofregulations@doj.ca.gov

Mail:
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816

Request a Public Hearing: The DOJ has not scheduled a public hearing, but you can compel one by submitting a written request no later than September 7, 2026 (15 days before the comment period closes).

TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE COMMENTS

TIPS FOR EFFECTIVE COMMENTS:

Be specific. Reference the particular regulation section you are commenting on (§§ 4304-4310). General statements of opposition carry less weight in the rulemaking record than comments addressing specific regulatory provisions.
Cite the evidence. Reference the factual findings in Rhode v. Bonta, 713 F.Supp.3d 865 (S.D. Cal. 2024), particularly the 11% false denial rate, the 0.03% actual prohibited-person catch rate, and the 37% of rejected purchasers who could not resolve denials within six months. These are judicially established facts, not advocacy claims.
Challenge the DOJ’s assumptions. The DOJ claims no adverse economic impact and no cost to individuals. Point out that the eligibility check process imposes time costs (up to 30 days for Basic checks), transportation costs (mandatory in-person transactions), and the practical cost of being unable to purchase a barrel for a lawfully owned firearm due to database errors.
Raise the AFS data quality issue. The regulations treat a failure to match an AFS entry as grounds for rejection, yet AFS records are incomplete (long gun records only begin in 2014) and frequently contain outdated information. Ask the DOJ to explain what measures it will take to prevent the same 11% false denial rate documented in the ammunition system.
Question the fee reservation. Although fees are currently $0.00, the DOJ has reserved the right to charge up to $5.00 per transaction. Ask the DOJ to commit to maintaining $0.00 fees or to explain its cost projections.
Address the 30-day processing period. A 30-day wait to purchase a replacement barrel for an existing firearm serves no legitimate public safety purpose and imposes a significant burden on lawful gun owners. Ask the DOJ to justify this timeline.
Note the absence of evidence. The DOJ admits it relied on zero empirical studies in proposing these regulations. Ask the DOJ to produce data showing how many prohibited persons have actually obtained firearm barrels to manufacture ghost guns, and how many ghost guns recovered by law enforcement contained commercially purchased barrels versus homemade or otherwise sourced barrels.

CONTACT INFORMATION FOR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RULEMAKING

Contact for Questions About the Rulemaking:

Baladjay-Fretland, Department of Justice
Phone: (916) 210-2621
Email: BOFregulations@doj.ca.gov

Backup contact: J. Walker, (916) 210-2366

YOUR VOICE MATTERS

All timely written comments that specifically address the proposed regulations must be reviewed and responded to by DOJ staff in the Final Statement of Reasons. This is a legal obligation under the Administrative Procedure Act, not a discretionary courtesy. Every substantive comment creates a record that strengthens legal challenges to these regulations if they are adopted.