2016 California Proposition 63

none Proposition 63 of other years California Proposition 63 (disambiguation)California Proposition 63 Proposition 63 Firearms and Ammunition Sales 8663159 5070772 14610509 19411771 2016 California Proposition 63 results map by county.svg County results Yes #28497C 80–90% 1px #AAAAAA solid #47729E 70–80% 1px #AAAAAA solid #7D9CBB 60–70% 1px #AAAAAA solid #B6C8D9 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid No #5D5D2D 80–90% 1px #AAAAAA solid #8B8B54 70–80% 1px #AAAAAA solid #BCBC83 60–70% 1px #AAAAAA solid #DEDEBD 50–60% 1px #AAAAAA solid Source: California Secretary of StateStatement of Vote - November 8, 2016, General Election December 16, 2016 http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/prior-elections/statewide-election-results/general-election-november-8-2016/statement-vote/ January 7, 2017 The 2016 Proposition 63, titled Firearms and Ammunition Sales, is a California ballot proposition that passed on the November 8, 2016, ballot. It requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition, prohibits possession of magazines with capacity of over ten rounds, levies fines for failing to report when guns are stolen or lost, establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons, and requires California Department of Justice's participation in the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.Proposition 63. California General Election November 8, 2016. Official Voter Information Guide. http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/63/ California Secretary of State 10 October 2016 https://web.archive.org/web/20161011223251/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/en/propositions/63/ 11 October 2016 dead Supporters of the measure stated that it would "fix a major flaw" put in place by the passing of Proposition 47 in 2014 by stating that theft of a firearm is a felony, regardless of its monetary value.https://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article105264986.html A California gun measure that's too high-stakes to fail Editorial The Sacramento Bee 2016-10-02 2016-10-11 mdy-all A September 2016 poll from USC Dornsife / Los Angeles Times showed 64% percent of registered voters in favor of Proposition 63, 28% opposed, and 8% unknown.https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B99Qs2h04TA7VVMtLU5pWXhBaW8 USC-Dornsife/LA Times Poll September 2016 USC Dornsife September 2016 Poll 11 October 2016 A November 2016 poll from Insights West showed 57% percent of likely voters in favor of Proposition 63, 35% opposed, and 8% undecided.http://www.insightswest.com/news/clinton-is-ahead-of-trump-as-u-s-presidential-election-approaches/ Clinton is Ahead of Trump as U.S. Presidential Election Approaches November 2016 Insights West 8 November 2016 8 November 2016 https://web.archive.org/web/20161108135928/http://www.insightswest.com/news/clinton-is-ahead-of-trump-as-u-s-presidential-election-approaches/ usurped Proposition 63 passed, 63% to 37%.McGreevy Patrick California voters approve gun control measure Proposition 63 November 8, 2016 Los Angeles Times http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-day-2016-proposition-63-gun-control-1478280771-htmlstory.html December 7, 2016 Ammunition purchase authorization requirement Once passed, Proposition 63 requires a background check and California Department of Justice authorization for each ammunition purchase. A $25,000,000 loan was appropriated to cover start-up costs,https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-6/title-4/division-10/chapter-1/article-4/section-30371/ 2024 California Code - Penal Code - PEN - PART 6 - CONTROL OF DEADLY WEAPONS - TITLE 4 - FIREARMS - DIVISION 10 - SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO PARTICULAR TYPES OF FIREARMS OR FIREARM EQUIPMENT - CHAPTER 1 - Ammunition - ARTICLE 4 - Ammunition Purchase Authorizations - Section 30371. Justia 2025-08-31 with a $1 fee charged during most ammunition purchase (some purchases require a $19 fee) to repay this loan.https://apnews.com/article/california-guns-ammunition-background-checks-3e67fefa928f5228ead332c7fe18f3cd Californians don’t have to pass a background check every time they buy bullets, federal judge rules AP 2024-01-31 2025-08-31 On July 1, 2025, the cost of most authorizations increased from $1 per purchase to $5 per purchase.https://krcrtv.com/news/local/california-ammo-fee-hike-takes-effect-july-1-as-gun-rights-debate-intensifies California ammo fee hike takes effect July 1 as gun rights debate intensifies ABC7 2025-06-24 2025-08-31 Federal court cases Duncan v. Bonta In March 2019, in the case Duncan v. Becerra (currently Duncan v. Bonta),Attorney General Becerra Continues Fight in Duncan v. Becerra, Defending California's Law that Bans the Acquisition and Possession of Large-Capacity Magazines (press release), Office of the California Attorney General (July 16, 2019). the Federal District Court stayed enforcement of the new law as the state failed to show how this law didn't violate the Second Amendment or the property rights of owners of previously legal goods. On March 29, 2019, Judge Roger Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled Proposition 63 unconstitutional, citing lawful defensive use of firearms across the state of California, specifically in the hands of women.https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/03/30/california-judge-high-capacity-gun-ammunition-magazines/3318916002/ Federal judge blocks high-capacity ammunition ban in California Thompson Don usatoday.com 2019-03-30Order Granting Plaintiffs page 2 line 6 Benitez stated that various violent crimes were far more common than mass shootings, and people can use firearms to defend themselves from them providing the law allows it, giving several examples in the first few pages of the opinion. "As in the year 2017, in 2016 there were numerous robberies, rapes, and murders of individuals in California and no mass shootings. Nevertheless, a gubernatorial candidate was successful in sponsoring a statewide ballot measure (Proposition 63). Californians approved the proposition and added criminalization and dispossession elements to existing law prohibiting a citizen from acquiring and keeping a firearm magazine that is able to hold more than 10 rounds. The State now defends the prohibition on magazines, asserting that mass shootings are an urgent problem and that restricting the size of magazines a citizen may possess is part of the solution. In August 2020, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in a 2–1 decision, upheld the district court's ruling.AG Files Petition For Review of Appeals Court's Ruling Tossing Magazine Ban, City News Service (August 28, 2020).Duncan v. Becerra (9th Cir. Aug. 26, 2020). California Attorney General Xavier Becerra successfully petitioned for en banc rehearing by a wider 11-judge panel of the court.9th Circuit Court Panel Ends California Ban On High-Capacity Magazines, CBS News/Associated Press (August 14, 2020).Ninth Circuit to Hear Case Challenging California's Magazine Ban En Banc, NRA-ILA (February 26, 2021). Duncan v. Bonta was heard en banc by the Ninth Circuit Court on June 22, 2021.https://www.nraila.org/articles/20210621/ninth-circuit-to-hear-oral-argument-in-nra-backed-challenge-to-california-s-magazine-ban NRA-ILA | Ninth Circuit To Hear Oral Argument In NRA-Backed Challenge to California's Magazine Ban NRA-ILA The en banc Court overturned the lower appellate panel in its ruling, holding that California's regulation of firearms did not violate the 2nd Amendment.https://www.nraila.org/articles/20211202/ninth-circuit-salvages-ca-magazine-ban Ninth Circuit Salvages CA Magazine Ban NRA-ILA December 2, 2021 January 23, 2023 On June 30, 2022, the US Supreme Court vacated the 9th circuit court of appeals en banc decision and remanded it for reconsideration in light of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling. On September 23, 2022, the en banc panel vacated its opinion and remanded it back to Benitez. On Friday, September 22, 2023, Benitez declared the California's ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition to be unconstitutional for the second time, saying it violated the Second Amendment rights of firearm owners.US Judge Strikes Down California Ban on High-Capacity Gun Magazines https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2023-09-22/us-judge-strikes-down-california-ban-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines#:~:text=Benitez%20had%20struck%20down%20the,consistent%20with%20the%20Bruen%20decision September 22, 2023 US News Rhode v. Bonta The case Rhode v. Bonta, originally Rhode v. Becerra, is challenging Proposition 63's requirement for background checks to purchase ammunition as well as its prohibition against importation of ammunition into the state by residents, unless importation takes place through a licensed ammunition dealer. On April 22, 2020, Judge Roger Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California struck down the requirement and prohibition, stating "California's new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured." California's Attorney General Xavier Becerra filed for and was granted a stay of the injunction to appeal the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/article242294206.html Stay granted in California ammo case, restricting sales again using criticized database Moleski Vincent The Sacramento Bee 2021-03-22 The case will be reheard by Judge Benitez in the Southern California Federal District Court on July 17, 2023.https://www.casd.uscourts.gov/Judges/benitez/calendar/benitez_071723.pdf Calendar of the United States District Court uscourts.gov 17 July 2023 On January 30, 2024, Benitez struck down the requirement and prohibition for the second time.January 30, 2024 Rhode v. Bonta Decision https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.casd.571335/gov.uscourts.casd.571335.105.0.pdf January 31, 2024 CourtListener In July 2025, the background check requirement was once again struck down by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.Duara Nigel 9th Circuit blocks part of gun law Newsom championed, prohibits background checks for ammo https://calmatters.org/justice/2025/07/gun-law-ammunition-background-check/ CalMatters See also Gun laws in California References External links http://safetyforall.com/ Yes on Prop 63 - Safety for All October 11, 2016 https://web.archive.org/web/20161217221036/http://safetyforall.com/ December 17, 2016 bot: unknown mdy-all No on 63 Coalition for Civil Liberties Category:2016 California ballot propositions