The Wire · CalGunHub

Ninth Circuit Panel Upholds California Gun Store Video and Audio Recording Law

Published October 31, 2026 · Updated October 31, 2026

A divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed dismissal of a challenge to Penal Code section 26806, which mandates surveillance systems inside licensed firearm stores.

Written by the CalGunHub desk from public reporting

Who this affects: For Californians who buy or sell firearms, the decision means the recording rules that took effect at the start of 2024 remain the governing standard for licensed retailers while any further review is sought. Shoppers should expect cameras and microphones in store areas where firearms are shown and at points of sale, and recordings can be released only under a court order. Retailers remain responsible for keeping footage for one year. The panel addressed claims under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments; it did not decide any Second Amendment question. This is general information, not legal advice.

California's requirement that licensed firearm retailers keep audio and video surveillance running in their stores withstood a broad constitutional attack on August 27, 2026, when a divided Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the dismissal of a legal challenge to the mandate.

In Richards v. Newsom, No. 25-693, the panel voted 2-1 to sustain Penal Code section 26806 against theories raised under the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Judge Lucy Koh authored the majority opinion, joined by Judge Ana de Alba. The decision left standing a January 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge James Selna of the Central District of California, who had thrown out the complaint.

The statute, Senate Bill 1384 of 2022, carried by then-Senator Dave Min, has been in force since January 1, 2024. It obliges licensees to keep cameras trained on every entrance and exit, on any area where firearms are displayed, and on points of sale, and interior units must capture sound as well as images. Recordings must be preserved for one year and can be accessed only under a court order.

On the Fourth Amendment theory, the majority was unpersuaded that the mandate itself amounts to a government search. According to The Reload's account of the opinion, "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."

Judge Kenneth K. Lee dissented. He characterized the audio component as an outlier, noting that California's own cannabis surveillance rules and the gun store surveillance laws of Illinois, New York, and Washington call for video only, according to coverage of the dissent.

Because the measure had already been operating for more than two years, the affirmance changed nothing on the ground. The challengers may petition for rehearing or en banc review. Attorney General Rob Bonta's office, which defended the statute, announced the outcome in an August 28 statement framing it as a successful defense of the state's gun store safety measures.

Informational only, not legal advice. Facts are attributed to the sources listed above.