Compared to most states, California has provided much broader authority to local governments to develop and enforce local gun safety regulations tailored to the needs of individual communities across the state. That is especially true after California passed legislation in 2022 declaring that local gun safety regulations may only be preempted by explicit statements in state law, instead of implied preemption, provided that the local gun safety regulation is at least as stringent as state law in the relevant area.¹

General Preemption Law in California

Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution provides that “[a] county or city may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws.” Under this provision, a local government’s police power is as broad as the state Legislature’s power, and a city or county may act to protect the welfare of its residents.² A local government’s police power includes the power to regulate firearms.³

Ordinances enacted pursuant to the police power are valid unless they conflict with state law.⁴ Court cases have held that a conflict exists if the local ordinance contradicts, duplicates, or enters an area occupied by general law, either expressly or by legislative implication.⁵ However, California also passed legislation in 2022 to further clarify the Legislature’s intent that state statutes shall not be construed to restrict local governments from taking action to regulate or prohibit firearms in a manner that is at least as stringent as the state laws of California, unless the state statute explicitly states that local governments are prohibited from doing so in the manner described by the statute.⁶

Preemption Statutes

The California Legislature has expressly preempted local gun safety actions in certain discrete areas of law, including the following:

• Licensing or registration of commercially manufactured firearms:⁷
• Licensing or permitting with respect to the purchase, ownership, possession, or carrying of a concealable firearm in the home or place of business⁸

• Regulation of the manufacture, sale or possession of “imitation firearms” (but with certain exceptions for Los Angeles County and cities located within Los Angeles County) ⁹
• Noise control laws governing shooting ranges.¹⁰

Interpretation and Implied preemption

In the past, plaintiffs brought a series of cases challenging local gun safety ordinances and regulations under the theory that the Legislature had impliedly preempted local action in that area. Courts held that local firearms regulation could be impliedly preempted when the Legislature had provided certain indicia of intent to preempt local regulation.¹¹

As noted above, however, California enacted legislation in 2022 that broadly and clearly establishes as a matter of interpretation that California state laws shall not be interpreted as impliedly preempting local gun safety ordinances that regulate or prohibit firearms in a manner that is at least as stringent as the laws of the state.¹² As a result, implied preemption analysis in California will generally only apply to local gun safety ordinances that are weaker or narrower than state level gun safety laws, and local gun safety ordinances are otherwise valid exercises of local police powers unless a state statute explicitly states that local governments are prohibited from regulating or prohibiting firearms in that area.

MEDIA REQUESTS

Our experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.

Contact

1. See 2022 CA SB 1327, SEC. 3(b)(effective January 1, 2023)(“A statute shall not be construed to restrict a political subdivision from regulating or prohibiting firearms in a manner that is at least as stringent as the laws of this state, unless the statute explicitly states that political subdivisions are prohibited from regulating or prohibiting firearms in the manner described by the statute.“).[↩]
2. Candid Enterprises v. Grossmont Union High School District, 705 P.2d 876, 882 (Cal. 1985).[↩]
3. Galvan v. Superior Court of San Francisco, 452 P.2d 930 (Cal. 1969).[↩]
4. Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 844 P.2d 534, 536 (Cal. 1993).[↩]
5. Id. at 536-7. “An ordinance contradicts state law if it is inimical to state law; i.e., it penalizes conduct that state law expressly authorizes or permits conduct which state law forbids.” Suter v. City of Lafayette, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 420, 428 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997).[↩]
6. See 2022 CA SB 1327, SEC. 3(b)(effective January 1, 2023)(“A statute shall not be construed to restrict a political subdivision from regulating or prohibiting firearms in a manner that is at least as stringent as the laws of this state, unless the statute explicitly states that political subdivisions are prohibited from regulating or prohibiting firearms in the manner described by the statute.“).[↩]
7. Cal. Gov’t Code § 53071. California Government Code Section 53071 provides: “It is the intention of the Legislature to occupy the whole field of regulation of the registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms as encompassed by the provisions of the Penal Code, and such provisions shall be exclusive of all local regulations, relating to registration or licensing of commercially manufactured firearms, by any political subdivision[.]”[↩]
8. Cal. Penal Code § 25605(b). California Penal Code section 25605(b) provides: “No permit or license to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed, shall be required of any citizen of the United States or legal resident over the age of 18 years who resides or is temporarily within this state, and who is not within the excepted classes prescribed by Chapter 2 … or Chapter 3 of Division 9 of this title, or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, to purchase, own, possess, keep, or carry, either openly or concealed, a handgun within the citizen’s or legal resident’s place of residence, place of business, or on private property owned or lawfully possessed by the citizen or legal resident.”[↩]
9. Cal Gov’t Code § 53071.5. A 2012 amendment to this statute allows the County of Los Angeles and any city within the County of Los Angeles to adopt regulations more restrictive than state law when it comes to regulating the manufacture, sale, possession, or use of any BB device, toy gun, replica of a firearm, device that expels a projectile no more than 16 millimeters in diameter, or any device that is so substantially similar in appearance to a firearm as to lead a reasonable person to perceive that the device is a firearm.[↩]
10. While California generally permits local regulation of sport shooting ranges, local jurisdictions are generally barred from enforcing new or amended noise control laws on shooting ranges that are in operation and not in violation of existing law at the time of the enactment of the new or amended noise control ordinance, if there has been no substantial change in the nature or use of the range. Cal. Civ. Code § 3482.1(d).[↩]
11. See Calguns Foundation, Inc. v. County of San Mateo, 218 Cal. App. 4th 661 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013); Fiscal v. City and County of San Francisco, 158 Cal. App. 4th 895 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008); Great Western Shows, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 44 P.3d 120 (Cal. 2002); Nordyke v. King, 44 P.3d 133 (Cal. 2002); California Rifle and Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. City of West Hollywood, 78 Cal. Rptr. 2d 591, 600 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998); Sherwin-Williams Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 844 P.2d 534, 537 (1993); Doe v. City and County of San Francisco, 186 Cal. Rptr. 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 1982).[↩]
12. See 2022 CA SB 1327, SEC. 3(b)(effective January 1, 2023)(“A statute shall not be construed to restrict a political subdivision from regulating or prohibiting firearms in a manner that is at least as stringent as the laws of this state, unless the statute explicitly states that political subdivisions are prohibited from regulating or prohibiting firearms in the manner described by the statute.“).[↩]