Fact check: Can California ban all firearms under the second amendment?

1. Why a total ban is legally fraught: Supreme Court precedent stands in the way

The Supreme Court’s holdings in Heller and its Bruen decision establish that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess commonly used weapons for lawful self‑defense, creating a high barrier for laws that would ban all firearms; courts have read these cases to mean categorical prohibitions on ordinary arms face stringent scrutiny and historical analogue tests ^[2]. California’s recent litigation trajectories reflect this constraint: appellate courts repeatedly distinguish accessory and location‑based regulations from outright bans on commonly owned weapons, sustaining targeted measures while signaling that a blanket firearms ban would likely be unconstitutional. The Ninth Circuit’s en banc Duncan v. Bonta decision upheld a large‑capacity magazine prohibition by treating magazines as accessories distinct from “arms,” explicitly stating that prohibiting commonly used firearms themselves would conflict with the constitutional guarantee, thereby underscoring the doctrinal limit on total bans ^{[6] [2]}.

2. What California actually regulates today: targeted bans, sensitive places, and model‑specific rules

California’s statutory regime comprises specific prohibitions and conditions—for example, limits on magazine capacity, bans on certain firearm features, restrictions on concealed carry in “sensitive places,” and jurisdictional prohibitions on particular models such as Glock‑style pistols that have been the subject of litigation ^{[1] [7] [4]}. Courts have upheld many of these restrictions while treating each as discrete legal questions; the state defends such laws by pointing to historical analogs and public‑safety rationales, and federal courts have sometimes sustained them when distinguishing accessories or locations from the core right to possess a common firearm. The NRA’s suit over the Glock‑style ban and Ninth Circuit challenges to “sensitive places” rules demonstrate that California’s approach is piecemeal rather than universal, and each targeted rule invites focused constitutional review ^{[4] [7]}.

3. Litigation trends and competing coalitions: who’s suing and what they argue

Conservative and gun‑rights actors—including the NRA and a 27‑state coalition led by Montana’s Attorney General—argue that California’s regulations like large‑capacity magazine bans and model‑specific prohibitions contravene Bruen’s historical‑analogue test and Heller’s protection of commonly owned arms, framing such items as “in common use” and therefore presumptively protected ^{[4] [5]}. Federal courts are split in application: the Ninth Circuit’s en banc opinion in Duncan v. Bonta upheld California’s magazine ban while reiterating that bans on firearms themselves remain presumptively unconstitutional, and the Montana‑led coalition presses similar claims in other contexts. These lawsuits illustrate two strands of argument: plaintiffs push for Bruen‑style history‑based invalidation of specific regulations, while the state defends targeted statutes on public‑safety grounds and by classifying certain items as accessories or dangerous outliers ^{[6] [5] [2]}.

4. The political route: a proposed 28th Amendment and why California pursued it

Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposal for a 28th Amendment aimed to enshrine universal background checks and a higher purchasing age of 21, signaling that California seeks federal constitutional change for broader gun‑safety measures rather than a state‑level blanket ban on all firearms ^[3]. The amendment proposal acknowledged the limitations of state law under federal constitutional protections and suggested that lasting, uniform reforms would require altering the national constitutional framework. The political strategy reflects a recognition of judicial limitations: whereas state statutes can regulate accessories, places, and certain weapons, a far‑reaching prohibition on the “right to keep and bear arms” across all jurisdictions would entail either a different Supreme Court interpretation or a constitutional amendment to supersede Heller/Bruen precedents ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Where this is headed: likely outcomes and unresolved questions

Under current constitutional doctrine and recent federal rulings, California is unlikely to lawfully ban all firearms without either a change in Supreme Court precedent or a successful constitutional amendment; the state will continue to pursue targeted restrictions that courts may uphold when they are framed as regulating accessories, sensitive places, or particularly dangerous features ^{[2] [8]}. Ongoing litigation — including the NRA’s challenge to Glock‑style bans and multi‑state suits against magazine limits — ensures the legal status of many California rules will remain fluid as courts apply Bruen’s historical test and Heller’s core holding to new categories. The principal unresolved questions are whether courts will broaden or narrow the definition of what counts as an “arm” or a permissible historical analogue, and whether political actors will secure the constitutional changes proposed by state leaders ^{[4] [5] [3]}.