Bill Ideas

[Kurt Williams]

Please submit and bill ideas or suggestions below. This would be for the 2026 session.

[Jason Hoisington]

Below are bill ideas I have for consideration. I have also included descriptions of previous laws and context to add justification to the bills to send to legislators who want more information, as well as a short explanation as to why these proposed ideas are important from my point of view. If there is anything that needs to be added for more context, feel free to let me know.

California Firearms Liability Clarification Act:

Under existing federal law, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) shields firearms manufacturers and firearms retailers from liability when the unlawful usage of firearms and ammunition occurs. The law provides immunity from lawsuits designed to target these entities in an attempt to hold them liable for someone else’s criminal behavior. Under existing federal law, the predicate exception to the PLCAA states that if firearms manufacturers and retailers are deliberately and knowingly selling firearms and ammunition to prohibited persons or those who are looking to make a straw purchase, there is no protection under this statute.

Existing state law, previously known as AB 1594 in 2023, signed into law, and went into effect July 1st, 2023, authorizes private individuals and the Attorney General to file lawsuits against firearms industry members for the criminal actions caused by a third party. Although the “dangerous and unusual” aspect of the law has been enjoined, see NSSF v. Bonta, the rest of the law is vague in its wording, and can still lead to frivolous lawsuits against the industry. This law still creates the option for anti-gun activists to attack the firearms industry with frivolous lawsuits.

This bill would bolster the PLCAA on a state level, and clarify the original intent of the PLCAA. Getting around the PLCAA using cherry-picked state laws regarding public nuisance and consumer protection laws, amongst others, would be disallowed, while providing strict limits on negligent marketing claims, and clarifying that the only reason lawsuits can be brought on under the predicate exception are if the firearms industry members are willingly violating the PLCAA, as mentioned above, pertaining to firearms and ammunition explicitly. This bill would also prevent these lawsuits brought on to bankrupt the firearms industry through lawfare. In addition, provide a section in this bill that states the plaintiffs must pay legal fees to the firearms industry members if the case is dismissed. The intent of this is so politically motivated actions are discouraged when considering such litigation; an actual claim under the predicate exception must be filed.

Why this is needed: Enemies of the firearms industry attack from every angle, and litigation has been a costly detriment. With other cases around the nation, such as Gustafson v. Springfield and Smith & Wesson et. al, v. Mexico, the PLCAA continues to be misinterpreted by anti-gun activists who are determined on shutting down the entire firearms industry. By using the predicate exception stated in the PLCAA dishonestly, frivolous lawsuits are brought on with little to no substance. Additionally, activist judges take up these cases at their own discretion if they align with the anti-gun crowd. The intent of this clarification act is to ensure lawsuits expressly dealing with manufacturers and retailers breaking the law, instead of interpreting other laws to construe the original intent of the PLCAA. As foretold in New York City v. Beretta, such loopholes to the predicate exception can cause major harm: “Such a result would allow the predicate exception to swallow the statute, which was intended to shield the firearms industry from vicarious liability for harm caused by firearms that were legally distributed into primary markets.” In other words, if any state law can be interpreted to get around the PLCAA, the federal statute would be moot, and this bill prevents that. Criminals must be held accountable for their actions, not firearms manufacturers and retailers. With the passage of Proposition 36 in California last election cycle, it shows that the people are tired of lenient punishments and shifting the focus onto things other than the criminals. This should carry over to all aspects of the law, while bolstering protections for the law-abiding people and entities that operate to keep our communities safer. In certain lawsuits against manufacturers and retailers, it has been argued that marketing firearms creates the want for bad actors to acquire firearms for malicious intent. Therefore, according to this far fetched line of thought, manufacturers and retailers should be held liable for “irresponsibly” and “recklessly” marketing firearms. We know, however, that the general knowledge of firearms does not subsequently beget criminal behavior. In the case of Goldstein v. Earnest, a California Superior Court in San Diego dismissed a lawsuit brought on in an attempt to hold Smith & Wesson liable for the Poway synagogue shooting. The case was dismissed under the PLCAA. The suit alleged that Smith & Wesson negligently and unlawfully marketed the rifle used in the shooting. To quote Judge Wendy Behan, “However, Plaintiffs make a leap in logic in arguing that the shooter’s mere knowledge of the S&W brand shows he was motivated to act criminally … [T]here is no evidence linking the shooter’s actions directly to these advertisements.” This furthers the point that such lawsuits against the firearms industry are erroneous. I believe there should be protections on the state level, not just federal, for our industry acquaintances. Currently, West Virginia and Montana have bills (HB 2067 in West Virginia and HB 801 in Montana) very similar to these, of which partial inspiration of this bill idea derives.

DES Ammunition Reform Act:

Under existing state law, formerly proposed as Proposition 63 and SB 1235, which went into effect July 1st, 2019, required that the DROS Entry System (DES) include ammunition background checks. Of which, there are variants of the ammunition background checks. First, the Standard Eligibility Check, which searches the Automated Firearms System (AFS) for records showing an individual has previously undergone a DROS for a firearm in California. This check costs $1.00, and if approved, the individual may acquire ammunition. Second, the Basic Eligibility Check, which is only good for a single transaction, is an eligibility check for those who are not prohibited from owning or possessing ammunition that do not have an AFS record. This check costs $19.00. Third, the Certificate of Eligibility (COE) Check, which verifies if the individual seeking to acquire ammunition has a valid COE verified by the DOJ. This check, just like the Standard Eligibility Check, costs $1.00. Lastly, the Firearms Eligibility Check, which authorizes an individual to acquire ammunition in the same transaction as a delivery of their firearm. This check is retroactively built into the background check and is therefore free of charge. Currently, ongoing litigation is determining the fate of these regulations in the case of Rhode v. Bonta, as the district courts have determined these regulations unconstitutional before, yet the Ninth Circuit and the Attorney General continue to delay the case.

If these regulations are to stay, pending the outcome of Rhode v. Bonta, this bill aims to streamline and add changes to the process for ammunition background checks in the meantime as we anticipate a ruling. This bill would simplify the eligibility check. This new eligibility check would be based solely on the state prohibited persons list, with no reliance on the AFS. As long as an individual, who resides in California, is not on the prohibited persons list, they shall not be denied access to ammunition transactions. The check should be instantaneous, just like the Standard Eligibility Check. Ideally, this check would have a fixed fee, and remain at a $1.00 fee instead of $19.00 from the Basic Eligibility Check. Additionally, this would remove non-violent DMV restrictions preventing individuals from obtaining ammunition.

Why this is needed: Many individuals who attempt to purchase ammunition in the state of California are denied due to there not being an AFS record, although their firearms were legally acquired prior to 2019. This also fixes the issue of said individuals having to go through the AFS and filing a Firearm Ownership Report form (BOF 4542A), which can take up to thirty days to process. As we have seen in the case of Ngyuen v. Bonta, a thirty-day waiting time for acquisition of arms is unconstitutional, and should be corrected in all aspects. This new system, solely relying on the prohibited persons database, would streamline the ammunition acquisition paperwork and process. As for the DMV restrictions, in the event of a revoked or suspended driver’s license due to outside factors unrelated to firearms, why should that individual be debarred from obtaining ammunition? With the simplified eligibility check, these non-violent DMV restrictions would be moot. In the recent case of United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court rejected the idea that you can disarm an individual due to irresponsible behavior. Thus, non-violent irresponsible behavior that leads to your driver’s license being revoked or suspended should not prevent individuals from acquiring ammunition. At the moment, the processing fee for the Standard Eligibility Check is $1.00 currently. There should be no reason why the DOJ should charge anything more for these checks, regardless of the DOJ’s proposal to increase the Standard Eligibility Checks to $5.00. This way, the fee is locked so that the government cannot raise fees extraneously to attempt to outprice people of their rights. Pending the ongoing case of Rhode v. Bonta, I hope this would help Californians in the meantime exercise their Second Amendment right without too much hassle.

California Constitutional Amendment – The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Enumerated:

Under the current California State Constitution, there is no declaration of an explicit right to keep and bear arms. The closest provision to that is expressed in Article 1, Section 1, and reads as follows: “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”

This bill would officially codify the right to keep and bear arms in the California State Constitution and a fundamental right that deserves to be protected at the state level. Modeled after colonial declarations of rights, this constitutional amendment would state: “For the proper defense of a free state, and the fundamental right of self-preservation against all violent assailants and oppressors, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The people retain the right of the usage of arms as the necessary safeguard of liberty, amongst other lawful purposes.”

Why this is needed: Many states in the union have declared the right to keep and bear arms in their state constitutions in addition to the federal Second Amendment, so why should California continue to exclude that? Anti-gun activists tote the idea that possession of arms should be a privilege, that no one has an inherent and private right to bear arms. Enumerating this right also helps dispel any further discrepancies between the state and federal constitutions. Additionally, to maintain the fundamental American idea of checks and balances, the legislature has the chance to correct a wrong by the California Supreme Court. In the case of Kasler v. Lockyer, originally about challenging the Assault Weapons Control Act (AWCA) of 1989, the Court stated in their opinion that the California Constitution does not grant the right to bear arms. From the Court’s opinion: “If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitution’s declaration of rights, they are simply wrong.” As previously explained, the closest thing in the state constitution would be under Article 1, Section 1, in which the plaintiffs in the Kasler case argued it implied the right to bear arms. Thus, an incongruent judiciary opinion that rules against the notion of liberty of this magnitude would not be tolerated, as well as having this right be state recognized as a stronger defense against the anti-gun lobby and politicians in state court. Ideally, this would also help our coalition to invalidate the strict gun control brought on by the state over the decades. I believe the God-given right to self-preservation must be enshrined in the California Constitution. I am open to any proposed changes to the wording of the amendment to make it stronger, if needed.

Many thanks, and I look forward to hearing your feedback!

[Rick Travis]

Thank you Jason. We will review these this week

[Author]

Posts