On February 14, 2024, Senator Anthony Portantino introduced SB 1160, which will require California firearm owners to annually register all firearms with some exemptions in California with the DOJ and pay annual registration fees subject to the DOJ's discretion starting July 1, 2025.^[13]

On February 16, 2024, Assemblymember Mike Gipson introduced AB 3067, which will require homeowners' and renters' insurance companies to gather information related to firearms and storage starting January 1, 2026, and to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the Legislature starting January 1, 2027.^[14]

On February 15, 2024, Senator Lena Gonzalez introduced SB 1253, which will require one to have a valid FSC to possess firearms starting January 1, 2026.^[21]

With the passage of Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135 in June 2016, the state's assault weapon ban has been expanded to include all semi-automatic center-fire rifles and shotguns that have a "bullet button" detachable magazine; effectively repealing a prior law that made "bullet button" magazines required on all newly manufactured weapons with detachable magazines. The sale or transfer of such weapons will be prohibited, effective January 1, 2017. Those purchased prior to January 1, 2017 must be registered with the DOJ by the start of 2018. The definition of types of weapons that are banned has been expanded, the exact definitions should be reviewed at the California DOJ website.^[22]

Section 32310 of the Penal Code states that any person who manufactures or causes to be manufactured, imports into the state, keeps for sale, or offers or exposes for sale, or who gives, lends, buys, receives, or assembles any large-capacity magazine from a parts kit is punishable by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year or imprisonment. Thus, the offenses listed can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor at the discretion of the prosecutor.^[23] Large-capacity is defined as being able to hold more than 10 rounds. In November 2016 California voters approved Proposition 63. The referendum outlaws the possession of such magazines, requires background checks for all ammunition sales and mandates the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.^[24] Under Proposition 63, mere possession of a large-capacity magazine is punishable as a misdemeanor with a $100 fine or an infraction with a $100 fine. This prohibition applies to magazines acquired prior to January 1, 2000 that were previously considered "grandfathered."^[25] Importation, manufacture, lending, assembling a large-capacity magazine from a parts kit, or buying a large-capacity magazine remains chargeable as a felony or a misdemeanor.^[26]

On June 29, 2017, a federal judge blocked the enforcement of Proposition 63's ban on the possession of large-capacity magazines, pending the outcome of litigation concerning the ban. Magazines that would have been subject to the Proposition 63 ban are legal for private citizens to keep until the injunction is either lifted and/or the ban is upheld by the courts.^[27][28] On March 29, 2019, the entire large-capacity magazine law was blocked permanently by the district court; this includes the ban on possession, in addition to the ban on manufacturing, importing, selling, etc.^[19][29] Following a stay request from Attorney General, Judge Benitez allowed the ban on manufacture, import, and sale of large-capacity magazines to be enforced while keeping in place the injunction against the enforcement of the ban on possession of previously legal large-capacity magazines, including all purchases made between the entry of the Court’s injunction on March 29, 2019 and April 5, 2019, 5:00 p.m.^[30]

On August 14, 2020, a 9th circuit court ruled the ban on high capacity magazines unconstitutional. "Gun owners cannot immediately rush to buy high-capacity magazines because a stay issued by the lower court judge remains in place," according to the Associated Press.^[31] However, this decision was vacated by the Circuit Court on February 25, 2021 until the case can be reheard.^[32] Duncan v. Bonta was heard en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court on June 22, 2021.^[33] The en banc Court overturned the lower appellate panel in its ruling, holding that California's regulation of firearms did not violate the 2nd Amendment.^[34]

On December 4, 2023, a lawsuit challenging California's laws forbidding nonresidents' concealed carry permits and nonresidents from obtaining California's CCW permit got filed.^[35]

§18710, §32625, §33215, §33410

§27600-27750

On August 25, 2014, the California's 10-day waiting period for gun purchases was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California which found that "the 10-day waiting periods of Penal Code [sections 26815(a) and 27540(a)] violate the Second Amendment" as applied to members of certain classifications (notably holders of concealed carry permits) and "burdens the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs".^[37] On December 14, 2016 this ruling was overturned by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.^[38] The plaintiffs' petition for an en banc rehearing was denied April 4, 2017; on February 20, 2018 the Supreme Court certiorari petition was denied, meaning that the waiting period remains in effect.^[39]

On May 1, 2023, a new lawsuit challenging the ten-day waiting period was filed.^[40]

Starting January 1, 2024, a person cannot manufacture more than 3 firearms within the state in a calendar year without a license.

On March 11, 2024, Judge William Q. Hayes declared that the 1-in-30 law as applied to handguns and semi-automatic centerfire rifles violates the Second Amendment.^[51]

On June 29, 2020, the Colorado Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the magazine restrictions.^[57]

There is a de facto registry of the sale (including the serial numbers) of handguns and long guns purchased in the state that is maintained by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP). Any transfer, be it from a dealer or private party, must be accompanied by an authorization number issued by the DESPP and a form containing personal and weapon identification (DPS-3-C) must be submitted to DESPP and local police. This form is collected and maintained on all guns purchased from FFL dealers as well. The DPS-3-C form is not required for long gun transfers made out of state, and there is no legal requirement/penalty to register firearms purchased out of state or lawfully obtained before April 1, 2014.

Connecticut has a two-step permitting process: a 60-day Temporary permit issued by local authorities and a 5-year Regular permit issued by the Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection (DESPP). Issuance of a Temporary permit is technically not a prerequisite to apply for a Regular permit, but in practice an applicant must await a decision from local authorities on the temporary permit application before applying to DESPP for the Regular permit. If the local permit is denied for any reason, instead one files an appeal to DESPP to have the state board re-examine the application. If the state board denies the permit (rare occurrence), a court appeal is possible. Permit needed to carry open or concealed. Exceptions for peace officers and Active-Duty military members. Out of state permits not valid in Connecticut, but non-residents may apply for a Connecticut non-resident carry permit through the mail. Non-residents must have a carry permit issued by a United States jurisdiction to apply.

As of October 1, 2019, handguns left in unattended vehicles are required to be stored in the trunk, locked safe, or locked glove box.^[62]

HRS134-11(3)

On July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Hawaii's laws restricting open carry are unconstitutional.^[69][70] That ruling was vacated on February 8, 2019, and the case was reheard en banc on September 24, 2020.^[71] On March 24, 2021, the en banc court ruled that Hawaii's restrictions on the open carrying of firearms are outside the historical scope of the Second Amendment and therefore the laws restricting open carry are constitutional.^[72]

No laws against open carrying long guns. The Bruen decision has left the no issuance of open carry licenses in a grey area at this point.

Law enforcement officers, school administrators, physicians, and mental health professionals can file a clear and present danger report with the Department of Human Services and Illinois State Police, which will revoke the FOID of a person who communicates a serious threat of physical violence or demonstrates threatening physical or verbal behavior. Subjects of such reports must undergo a psychological evaluation to prove they are not a danger to themselves or others if they wish to obtain a FOID or to have a revoked FOID reinstated.

• Postsecondary educational institutions
• Any unit of government within the state in buildings that it owns, leases, or occupies – however, concealed carry is allowed in highway rest areas, public housing, and private dwellings

• Effective July 4, 2024, adults 18+ will no longer be required to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

On November 21, 2023, a three-judge panel in the Fourth Circuit voted 2-1 to strike down the handgun licensing requirement as unconstitutional on 2A grounds.^[80]

On January 11, 2024, the Fourth Circuit agreed to rehear the challenge en banc.^[81]

Some local counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in opposition to assault weapon laws.^[82]

NRS 503§165 - Carrying loaded rifle or shotgun in or on vehicle on or along public way unlawful; exceptions.

Long guns carried openly in a vehicle may not have a round chambered, but may otherwise have a loaded magazine inserted or inside them.^[93]

A revised version was signed into law on February 15, 2019 to fix the deficiencies of Question 1. The law is set to go into effect in January 2020.^{[100][101][needs update]}

Some local counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in opposition.^[102]

Some local counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in opposition to universal background check laws.^[123]

• A parent or guardian, or another person with the consent of the parent or guardian, may transfer a firearm other than a handgun to a minor. (ORS 166.470(3)(a))
• The temporary transfer of any firearm to a minor for hunting, target practice, or any other lawful purpose. (ORS 166.470(3)(b))

• ...possess a firearm other than a handgun if the firearm was transferred to the minor by the minor’s parent or guardian or by another person with the consent of the minor’s parent. ORS 166.250(2)(a)(A)
• ...not possess a firearm if they are under 18 years of age, and while a minor, committed the equivalent of an adult felony or a misdemeanor involving violence, within four years of being charged with possession. ORS 166.250(1)(c)
• ...may also possess any firearm temporarily for hunting, target practice, or any other lawful purpose. ORS 166.250(2)(a)(B) ( and ORS 166.470(3)(b); see above)

Some local counties have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions regardless.^[136]

As of 2021, campus carry is left up each university to decide.^[137] Prior to that, a 2011 Oregon Court of Appeals ruling stated that public universities did not have the authority to prohibit firearms on their grounds, but could still prohibit them inside buildings.

However, Oregon law allows a city or county to regulate open carry of loaded firearms in public places, but holders of concealed carry permits are exempt. (ORS 166.173) The cities of Portland,^[138] Beaverton,^[139] Tigard,^[140] Oregon City,^[141] Salem,^[142] and Independence,^[143] as well as Multnomah County,^[144] have statutes which do not allow open carry of loaded firearms (unless one has a concealed carry permit).

(i) the actor has a right to be in the place where he was attacked;

(ii) the actor believes it is immediately necessary to do so to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping or sexual intercourse by force or threat; and

(iii) the person against whom the force is used displays or otherwise uses:

(A) a firearm or replica of a firearm as defined in 42 Pa.C.S. § 9712 (relating to sentences for offenses committed with firearms); or

(B) any other weapon readily or apparently capable of lethal use"

The practice of not issuing permits on a true "shall issue" basis has been the subject of recent litigation. In April 2015, the Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that a police chief must accept and review carry permit applications and must render a decision and the reasons for that decision. More significantly, the court ruled that the issuing authority must "show cause" for denying an applicant a carry license.^[147]

Permits issued by local authorities and the Attorney General's office are valid for concealed carry statewide.

Some localities have adopted Second Amendment sanctuary resolutions in opposition.^[148]

"(1) A person is justified in using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent or terminate the other's unlawful entry into or attack upon his habitation; however, he is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if: (a) the entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner, surreptitiously, or by stealth, and he reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person, dwelling, or being in the habitation and he reasonably believes that the force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence; or (b) he reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony in the habitation and that the force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony. (2) The person using force or deadly force in defense of habitation is presumed for the purpose of both civil and criminal cases to have acted reasonably and had a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury if the entry or attempted entry is unlawful and is made or attempted by use of force, or in a violent and tumultuous manner, or surreptitiously or by stealth, or for the purpose of committing a felony."

"(1) (a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that force or a threat of force is necessary to defend the person or a third person against another person's imminent use of unlawful force. (b) A person is justified in using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury only if the person reasonably believes that force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to the person or a third person as a result of another person's imminent use of unlawful force, or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony."

In a vehicle, a firearm is exempt from the requirement for a concealed carry permit if the firearm is "properly secured in a container or compartment within the vehicle" (ie glove box, center console, trunk, etc). The container/compartment does not have to be locked, the firearm may be within the reach of the driver or a passenger, and the firearm may be loaded.^[155] This does not preempt an employer from prohibiting firearms "at a place of employment if there is a company policy or signage prohibiting firearms on the premises."^[156] Furthermore, a "county or city may by ordinance make it unlawful for any person to transport, possess or carry a loaded shotgun or loaded rifle in any vehicle on any public street, road, or highway within such locality." However, this does not "apply to duly authorized law-enforcement officers or military personnel in the performance of their lawful duties, nor to any person who reasonably believes that a loaded rifle or shotgun is necessary for his personal safety in the course of his employment or business."

§ 18.2-287.4
§ 18.2-282

In a vehicle, a firearm may be considered "openly carried" if the firearm is openly visible, though this is not as well established as the "secured in a container/compartment" rule mentioned above.

§ 18.2-308.2:01 § 18.2-308.7

§ 18.2-282.

On January 31, 2019, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that the mere possession of a handgun is not sufficient for conducting a Terry stop.^[169]

^{[170] [171]}

Seattle and Edmonds have passed ordinances mandating safe storage of firearms when not being carried or used. Seattle's ordinance also has reporting requirement for lost or stolen firearms within 24 hours. Both cities are being sued for violation of state preemption.^[172][173] Edmonds had its ordinance struck down in October 2019.^[174]

^{[176] [177] [178] [179]}

^{[181] [182] [183] [167]}