How many guns can I buy in a month in California?

The operative text reads: "A person shall not make an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than three firearms cumulatively within any 30-day period" (Penal Code 27535(a)).

Two details matter:

• The limit is on applications to purchase. The application is the Dealer's Record of Sale (DROS) a dealer submits for you.
• "Month" is shorthand. The statute uses a 30-day period, so the count moves forward day by day.

The leginfo page for Section 27535 shows two versions. The one-firearm version became inoperative on April 1, 2026, and is formally repealed on January 1, 2027. The three-firearm version is the one in force.

The statute says "firearms" without limiting the type. The matching dealer rule spells it out: a dealer may not deliver when DOJ reports that the buyer's applications would exceed three firearms in the 30 days before the application, "including any handgun, semiautomatic centerfire rifle, completed frame or receiver, or firearm precursor part" (Penal Code 27540(f)).

Section 27535(a) adds that it "does not authorize a person to make an application or applications to purchase a combination of firearms, completed frames or receivers, or firearm precursor parts within the same 30-day period."

The Department of Justice (DOJ) does, during the background check. When a dealer submits a DROS, DOJ examines its records to determine whether the buyer "is a person described in subdivision (a) of Section 27535." If so, DOJ must immediately notify the dealer and local law enforcement (Penal Code 28220(a) and (c)). The dealer then may not deliver the firearm (Penal Code 27540(f)).

If DOJ cannot tell before the 10-day wait ends whether a buyer is over the limit, that is one of the listed grounds for delaying the transfer (Penal Code 28220(g)(1)(C)).

Dealers must also post the limit on a sign in the store (Penal Code 26835(a)(8)).

Subdivision (b) of Penal Code 27535 lists 14 numbered exemptions, paragraphs (1) through (14). The summary below covers all 14 and groups them into 11 lines, with the paragraph numbers in parentheses:

• Law enforcement agencies, agencies authorized to perform law enforcement duties, and state or local correctional facilities (paragraphs 1 to 3).
• Private security companies licensed in California (paragraph 4).
• Full-time paid peace officers who are authorized to carry a firearm on duty (paragraph 5).
• Motion picture, television, video, and theatrical companies whose productions involve firearms (paragraph 6).
• People who can claim an exemption from the 10-day waiting period under the listed articles (paragraph 7).
• Two kinds of private party transactions, described next (paragraphs 8 and 9).
• Federally licensed collectors who hold a current Certificate of Eligibility from DOJ (paragraph 10).
• An exchange, when the dealer bought the firearm from the same person within the previous 30 days (paragraph 11).
• Replacement of a firearm that was lost or stolen, if the loss or theft was reported under Penal Code 25250 before the replacement application was completed (paragraph 12).
• The return of a firearm to its owner (paragraph 13).
• Community colleges certified to present the law enforcement academy basic course or other commission-certified law enforcement training (paragraph 14).

The statute does not exempt private party transfers as a group. It exempts two specific kinds (Penal Code 27535(b)(8) and (9)):

1. A private party transaction where the seller is, at that time, required by state law or court order to relinquish all firearms.
2. A private party transaction where the seller is the personal representative of an estate transferring firearms to heirs or beneficiaries, the holder of a decedent's property transferring under the listed Probate Code sections, or a trustee transferring to trust beneficiaries after the death of a settlor.

A private party transfer that fits neither description is not on the exemption list.

The Ninth Circuit's opinion in Nguyen v. Bonta gives the history:

• The Legislature enacted the "one-gun-a-month" law in 1999. It covered concealable handguns.
• It was later extended to more firearms, and by 2024 it applied to all firearms.
• The federal district court for the Southern District of California held the law unconstitutional and enjoined it.
• On June 20, 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel affirmed. It held that the law "facially violates the Second Amendment," reasoning that the Amendment protects possessing multiple firearms and acquiring them without meaningful constraints, and that the law was not supported by the nation's tradition of firearm regulation.
• Judge Owens wrote a short concurrence noting that the opinion concerns only the one-gun-a-month law and does not address other ways of restricting bulk and straw purchasing.
• The Ninth Circuit's mandate was entered on the district court docket on August 14, 2025 (docket, as mirrored by CourtListener).

The Legislature then passed AB 1078 (Stats. 2025, ch. 570), which wrote the three-firearm limit into Sections 27535 and 27540 with an April 1, 2026 operative date (DOJ bulletin 2026-DLE-02).