CA DOJ Moves Forward with Proposed Ammo Regulations

CA DOJ Submits Proposed Regulations Regarding Upcoming Ammunition Transfer Background Check Requirements to Office of Administrative Law

Beginning July 1, 2019, all ammunition transactions in the state of California will be subject to a background check requirement. But in order to implement this requirement, the California Department of Justice (“DOJ”) must first adopt necessary regulations which, as of today, have been submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”) for review.

As reported earlier, California gun owners were given an opportunity to comment on DOJ’s proposed regulations on two separate occasions. CRPA and NRA submitted two comprehensive comment letters on DOJ’s proposal. The first letter highlighted the many key substantive provisions lacking in the proposal and serious issues as to the required authority, clarity, and consistency required by California’s Administrative Procedures Act. The second letter addressed key revisions and statements made by DOJ during a recent stakeholder’s meeting concerning the proposed regulations.

OAL has until July 1—the day the new requirements are scheduled to take effect—to approve or deny DOJ’s proposed regulations. Assuming OAL approves, California gun owners need to know what to expect when purchasing ammunition beginning July 1. To that end, CRPA, with the support of NRA, has prepared a comprehensive Information Bulletin addressing many frequently asked questions regarding the upcoming ammunition background check requirements.

To access CRPA’s Information Bulletin, click HERE.

In the meantime, CRPA attorneys are working to obtain a copy of the regulations as submitted to OAL to determine any necessary course of action. Members should also know that a lawsuit, titled Rhode v. Becerra, has already been filed challenging California’s new ammunition sales restrictions. To learn more about the Rhode lawsuit and to stay informed on DOJ’s ammunition background check regulations, be sure to visit the CRPA webpage at

Download This Alert


  • How nice of them to do this during the month of July, the time most of us have to fork out money for our overpriced hunting licenses. All of this documentation, registration, endless fees, and fines, yet an illegal can just waltz right in here and not only will our wonderful state government not apply the same level of scrutiny to them, but they will also deliberately violate Federal immigration laws to keep them here.

  • Dear ma’am/Sirs….. So simple the second amendment states clearly “shall not be infringed upon” any attempt to regulate change or alter this should be against the law. End of story. This whole thing is best seen as either the governments way to begin a slow insidious unlawful way to gain more control over us the people, to make more money off of us and to slowly manipulate the constitution to their liking. This should be seen as unconstitutional and therefore unlawful!!

  • I tried to write emails to the government email that was listed by the CRPAand the NRA But the emails were not working. Seems funny that we are not a comment about keeping our rights and freedoms two emails that don’t work?

  • I read the Superior Court Judge Benitize’s ruling on the last challenge the State of California attempted in restricting the number of rounds a citizen was allowed to buy. His opinion was exquisite, to the point, & inarguable! He restated the intent of the authors as to the 2nd Ammendment of The Constitution. I was overjoyed I voted for him-the only Curcuit Court Judge running! He knows Constutional Law!
    Hopefully,this case will again be reviewed by him. He has the State’s true intentions at hand. He will not allow any subtle changes to our rights to bear arms,no matter how many times or ways the State tries!! They will try many more times,I’m afraid. This isn’t over by a long shot.
    As long as we,The People,have Judges like Mr. Benitez on the bench,we are assured our Constitutional Rights will remain in tact,as the Founding Fathers intended!!

  • I spoke to an FFL yesterday asking if they had received information on how to handle the process. He said they had not. One thing he brought up is that they thought if the ammo being purchased didn’t match up with an associated gun in ones record the sale may be declined. I don’t see it addressed in this alert but can imagine it would be true. Any thoughts?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


January 1, 1970


CRPA 1st Responders Appreciation BBQ

Thank you for being our local heroes!

August 05, 2018

CRPA Firing Line Magazine

CRPA Firing Line: May/June 2018 Issue

May 1, 2018