Richards v. Newsom

What the court held

Gun dealers, private citizens and a coalition including Gun Owners of America, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation challenged California Penal Code § 26806, which requires every licensed firearms dealer to maintain a digital audio-video recording system covering their business premises — including FFLs who operate out of their homes. On August 27, 2026, a Ninth Circuit panel (Koh, joined by de Alba) affirmed dismissal for failure to state a claim: recording by the dealer's own system is not a Fourth Amendment search absent state access or intrusion, the mandate is neither a physical nor regulatory taking, and the First Amendment theories — overbreadth, compelled association, chilled speech — all failed on the pleadings. Judge Lee dissented in part, arguing the scheme enables unannounced warrantless searches of home-based dealers and offends the First and Fourth Amendments on theories the majority said the plaintiffs never pleaded — a framing that leaves room for a future, better-pleaded challenge.

Summarized from the court's opinion.

What this case is about

Whether California Penal Code § 26806, requiring every licensed firearms dealer to run a digital audio-video recording system on premises, violates the First, Fourth or Fifth Amendment

GunMapUSA summary of the issue, not a quotation from the court.

Key Dates

• 2026-02-02 — Argued
• 2026-08-27 — Decided — dismissal affirmed; dealer surveillance mandate stands

Sources

• Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit — retrieved 2026-09-01
• CourtListener — retrieved 2026-09-01