AB 1078 amends California’s concealed‑carry and firearm transaction rules across multiple Penal Code sections. It expands the grounds that disqualify an applicant—adding out‑of‑state contempt convictions, comparable out‑of‑state convictions or orders, and unlawful use or addiction to controlled substances—and requires licensing authorities to report certain disqualified applicants to the federal NICS Index with supporting documentation.
The bill also changes how non‑California residents obtain carry licenses, authorizes virtual psychological assessments for some applicants, and tightens licensing‑investigation requirements.
On transactions and possession, AB 1078 raises the 30‑day purchase limit from one to three (operative April 1, 2026) and updates the dealer delivery prohibition so dealers must refuse delivery if DOJ notification shows a customer’s purchases would exceed that capped total. It also clarifies when a licensed carrier may transport an unloaded firearm in a lock box on public transit and updates required safety and suicide‑prevention signage at licensed dealers.
The measure adds procedural and reporting duties for local licensing authorities and makes several technical changes to revocation, notice, and hearing processes.
At a Glance
What It Does
Expands the definition of disqualifying conduct for concealed‑carry licenses, creates an obligation for licensing authorities to submit specified disqualified‑person data to the NICS Index within five days, and raises the permitted number of firearm purchase applications in a 30‑day period from one to three. It also standardizes application and training requirements for non‑California residents and modifies delivery and transport rules tied to lock boxes.
Who It Affects
County sheriffs and municipal police licensing units, the California Department of Justice (DOJ), licensed firearm dealers, non‑California resident applicants for carry licenses, psychologists and virtual assessment providers, and public transit authorities and their security coordinators.
Why It Matters
The bill changes both screening and transactional mechanics: licensing offices must expand investigations and reporting, DOJ must process more fingerprint and eligibility checks, dealers must update retail and compliance systems to enforce the new 3‑gun cap, and nonresident licensing is formalized with live‑fire and sworn attestation requirements that raise verification and perjury risks.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 1078 rewrites multiple concealed‑carry and firearms transaction rules so that local licensing authorities must run deeper investigations and apply new disqualifying criteria. The bill directs licensing authorities to check the California Restraining and Protective Order System for indicators that an applicant is “reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community,” and it explicitly treats convictions or orders from other states or federal law with comparable elements as grounds for denial under specified look‑back periods.
When the licensing authority determines an applicant is a disqualified person because of unlawful controlled‑substance use or addiction, the authority must submit identifying information and supporting documentation to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Index within five days and retain that documentation for a limited period.
For non‑California residents, the bill creates a route to obtain a California carry license but raises verification requirements: applicants must attest under oath that the jurisdiction where they apply is their primary location in California for travel or time spent, identify each firearm (make, model, caliber, serial number), and certify they completed live‑fire exercises for every firearm for which they seek a license. Licensing authorities must approve the live‑fire course or suggest an alternative within 75 miles of the applicant’s residence.
If a psychological assessment is required, nonresident applicants may satisfy it via a virtual assessment or a provider within 75 miles of their home.On sales, AB 1078 increases the count of firearm applications permitted per person in a rolling 30‑day window from one to three, effective April 1, 2026. Dealers must not deliver a firearm if DOJ notifies them that the purchaser’s cumulative applications would result in acquiring more than three firearms in that 30‑day window; the dealer delivery prohibition is otherwise unchanged.
The bill also replaces and updates the dealer signage and suicide‑prevention notices that must be posted in licensed premises, moving new language into operative law beginning April 1, 2026. Finally, the legislation clarifies carry‑prohibitions and transport exceptions tied to lock boxes, including an explicit carve‑out permitting an unloaded firearm secured in a certified lock box to be transported on public transit under specified conditions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
When a licensing authority determines an applicant is disqualified for unlawful use of or addiction to controlled substances, it must submit the person’s identifying data and supporting documentation to the NICS Index within five days and retain that supporting documentation for 12 months.
Non‑California resident carry applicants must attest under oath that the application jurisdiction is their primary California location, list make/model/caliber/serial number for each firearm they want licensed, and complete live‑fire exercises for each listed firearm; the licensing authority must approve or suggest an acceptable course within 75 miles.
Beginning April 1, 2026, a person may not apply to purchase firearms that would cumulatively exceed three firearms within any 30‑day period, and dealers must refuse delivery if DOJ notifies them that the purchase would exceed that cumulative three‑gun cap.
Licensing authorities must use the California Restraining and Protective Order System as part of their investigation to identify whether applicants are reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community, and include that determination in their 90‑day initial notice process.
For renewal applications submitted on or after September 1, 2026, licensing authorities must submit fingerprints to DOJ and wait for DOJ’s eligibility confirmation before issuing renewals; renewals submitted before that date remain subject to the prior 120‑day notice rule.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Public transit possession rule and lock‑box transport carve‑out
The bill amends the public transit prohibition to permit a person to transport an unloaded firearm secured in a certified lock box when the transit system offers checked‑baggage services and the lock box meets the Department of Justice roster standard. This is a narrow operational exception: firearms otherwise remain prohibited in public transit facilities, but the change aligns transit rules with the new lock‑box transport language later placed in the concealed‑carry restrictions.
Residential and nonresident licensing formats and requirements
These sections separate rules for California residents versus nonresidents. For residents, the statutorily required training and ownership checks remain, and some counties retain an option for an exposed‑and‑loaded county‑only license where population thresholds apply. For nonresidents the bill creates several verification and training obligations—oath attestation of primary California travel location, detailed firearm identification, required live‑fire training for each firearm, and approval mechanics for live‑fire courses—effectively formalizing a pathway for nonresidents while adding multiple points the authority can use to deny or condition a license.
Fingerprinting, DOJ response, fees, and psychological assessment rules
AB 1078 prescribes that DOJ will provide state/federal eligibility responses upon receiving fingerprints. It requires that renewals submitted on or after September 1, 2026 include fingerprints; DOJ must confirm eligibility before issuance. The statute caps DOJ application fees at actual processing costs and authorizes local licensing fees for processing and enforcement. The bill also permits virtual psychological assessments for nonresidents or approval of providers within 75 miles when a psych screen is required.
Expanded disqualification criteria and investigative duties
This section recasts who is a disqualified person: it adds out‑of‑state contempt convictions and comparable out‑of‑state convictions or orders as disqualifiers within specified look‑back periods, clarifies several substance‑related disqualifiers (including unlawful user or addicted), flags loss/theft reporting failures, and mandates minimum investigative steps for licensing authorities—interviews, reference checks, public information review, DOJ materials, and searching the California Restraining and Protective Order System for evidence someone is likely to be dangerous.
Dealer signage and suicide‑prevention notice
The bill replaces and reauthorizes a set of required warning notices dealers must post. The new text requires specific block‑letter warnings about safe storage, legal penalties, loss/theft reporting, the federal 30‑day possession rule, and a suicide‑prevention notice referencing the 988 Lifeline. The operative dates move some signage provisions into law beginning April 1, 2026, creating a compliance deadline for licensed dealers.
Thirty‑day purchase cap raised to three and dealer delivery prohibition updated
The statute repeals and replaces the old one‑per‑30‑day rule with a cumulative three‑firearm cap effective April 1, 2026. It mirrors the existing exemptions (law enforcement, movie productions, estate transfers, collectors with COE, etc.). The dealer delivery provision is updated so dealers must refuse delivery if DOJ notifies that the applicant’s combined applications in the prior 30 days would exceed three firearms. That creates a new operational check tied to DOJ notifications rather than dealer recordkeeping alone.
Out‑of‑state nonviolent convictions and restoration of firearms rights
AB 1078 expands the circumstances under which federal or other‑state convictions are treated as not triggering California’s firearms prohibitions—for example, where a nonviolent out‑of‑state conviction was vacated or a pardon restored firearms rights. The section clarifies what counts as a “nonviolent felony” for these relief pathways, preserving California’s ability to bar possession in other circumstances while recognizing certain conviction relief from other jurisdictions.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Justice across all five countries.
Explore Justice in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Non‑California residents who regularly travel to California — the bill creates a defined process for them to obtain a California carry license (sworn attestation, approved live‑fire completion, and virtual psych options), making licensing feasible where local practice previously varied.
- People whose out‑of‑state nonviolent convictions were vacated, expunged, or pardoned — AB 1078 clarifies that in certain circumstances those convictions will not trigger California’s firearms possession prohibitions, restoring rights for a subset of individuals.
- Licensed firearm dealers — the higher 30‑day cap increases permitted sales volume per purchaser (from one to three), and the clearer DOJ notification mechanism standardizes when dealers must refuse delivery, reducing some legal uncertainty about enforcement timing.
- Virtual and near‑location psychological assessment providers — the statute explicitly authorizes virtual assessments for certain nonresidents or approval of providers within 75 miles, creating a regulated market for remote evaluations tied to licensing.
Who Bears the Cost
- County sheriffs and municipal police licensing units — expanded investigation duties, additional fingerprint processing for renewals after September 1, 2026, five‑day NICS reporting obligations, and new recordkeeping/reporting requirements will consume staff time and require process changes.
- California Department of Justice — DOJ must process more fingerprint submissions, generate more eligibility determinations, and deliver more notifications to dealers and licensing authorities, increasing workload without dedicated appropriation in the text.
- Licensed firearm dealers — compliance costs to update point‑of‑sale systems to check DOJ notifications against the new three‑gun cap, revise posted warnings and counter signage, and modify delivery procedures (including training staff) will be nontrivial.
- Local courts and district attorneys — AB 1078 preserves and in some cases increases judicial hearings to review denials/revocations (with a 60‑day hearing scheduling requirement), which could increase court workload and prosecutorial resources, especially where contested disqualification rulings are frequent.
- Licensing authorities’ records and IT systems — the five‑day NICS submission requirement and retention rules for supporting documentation will require secure data handling, storage, and potentially new IT interfaces with federal and state systems.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma in AB 1078 is that it tightens screening and reporting to reduce dangerous possession while simultaneously loosening limits on how many firearms an individual can acquire in 30 days—creating a policy trade‑off between more intrusive, resource‑heavy vetting and broader lawful access that shifts risk from a per‑purchase ceiling to the effectiveness of vetting and real‑time DOJ notifications.
AB 1078 stitches together expansions in vetting with loosened transactional limits; operationalizing both will be messy. The NICS reporting requirement for applicants found to be unlawful users/addicted to controlled substances requires licensing authorities to assemble and transmit arrest, test, or admission documentation within five days.
That raises practical questions about standardized formats, verification thresholds for “admission” or “test results,” privacy protections, and whether local agencies will have the legal authority and technical capacity to push those records into federal systems quickly and securely.
The new rules for nonresident applicants (oath attestation of a primary California location and per‑firearm live‑fire training) create enforcement and perjury exposure points but few tools to verify the attestation aside from follow‑up investigation. Similarly, the “reasonably likely to be a danger” standard anchored to public‑records and social media searches is inherently subjective; it increases discretionary denials and will shift contested decisions into the courts.
On the transactions side, raising the 30‑day cap to three reduces one constraint on aggregate purchases, but the new delivery prohibition tied to DOJ notifications creates a single choke point—if DOJ processing lags or is enjoined in litigation, dealers and purchasers will face uncertainty. Finally, the bill relies on external rosters and definitions (the DOJ roster of certified lock boxes and the Code of Regulations definitions) that require timely administrative maintenance; delays or gaps there will frustrate on‑the‑ground compliance.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.