The Wire · CalGunHub
Dealer Recording Requirements Stand After Ninth Circuit Ruling
Published · Updated
A 2-1 panel kept Penal Code 26806 in force, leaving continuous video and interior audio recording obligations on California gun dealers unchanged.
Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting
Who this affects: For California's licensed firearms dealers, the ruling means the recording obligations that took effect in 2024 continue without interruption: continuous video at 15 frames per second or better, interior audio, one-year retention and annual certification to the Department of Justice. Dealers who delayed equipment upgrades while the case was pending face no grace period created by the litigation, since the law was never blocked. Customers shopping at California gun stores should expect audio and video recording throughout sales areas. This is general information, not legal advice.
California firearms dealers remain subject to the state's continuous recording mandate after a Ninth Circuit panel voted 2 to 1 on Aug. 27, 2026 to affirm dismissal of Richards v. Newsom, according to The Reload and an announcement from the California Attorney General's office the following day.
The statute, Penal Code Section 26806, was enacted through SB 1384 in 2022 and took effect Jan. 1, 2024. It requires licensed dealers to run recording equipment around the clock at 15 frames per second or better, capturing entrances and exits, display areas for firearms and points of sale, and to record interior audio. Recordings must be retained for one year, and dealers must certify compliance annually to the state Department of Justice, according to the attorney general's release.
Judge Lucy Koh wrote the majority opinion, joined by Judge Ana de Alba, while Judge Kenneth Lee dissented on the audio recording requirement, The Reload reported. The operative complaint brought claims under only the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The panel concluded that a dealer operating its own recording system is not conducting a government search, and it found no taking or speech violation, affirming the dismissal entered by U.S. District Judge James Selna.
Koh wrote for the majority, as quoted by The Reload: "The panel rejected plaintiffs' contention that a search occurs the moment that a federally licensed firearm dealer's recording system begins to record any audiovisual data."
Plaintiffs in the case included firearms dealers, gun-rights organizations and individuals, according to the attorney general's office. Attorney General Rob Bonta's office framed the outcome as a defense of the state's gun store safety measures. Whether plaintiffs will seek further review, such as an en banc rehearing or Supreme Court petition, had not been confirmed as of publication, leaving the compliance picture settled for now but potentially subject to later appellate action.
Sources
Informational only, not legal advice. Facts are attributed to the sources listed above.