If you’re a California gun owner, 2026 didn’t just bring a new calendar. It brought new storage rules, too.

On a recent episode of California Gun Law, host Don Hammond walked through the state’s freshly updated firearm storage laws that officially took effect January 1, 2026.

And fair warning: this is one of those “sounds boring until it gets expensive or criminal” topics.


The changes come from Assembly Bill 53, passed back in 2024, and they dramatically tighten how firearms must be stored inside any “residence.” And California defines “residence” broadly. Houses, apartments, hotel rooms, RVs, even places where you’re temporarily living all count.

SEE ALSO: M1 Garand Bucket List: Shoot The Legend
The heart of the update lives in Penal Code sections 25100 and 25145, which now spell out three flavors of “criminal storage of a firearm.”

First-degree criminal storage is the big one. If a child or prohibited person accesses your firearm and causes death or great bodily injury, you’re looking at felony charges.
Second-degree drops to a misdemeanor if someone gets hurt but not seriously injured.
Third-degree still lands you in misdemeanor territory even if no one touches the gun. if you should have known access was possible.
Here’s the kicker: a lot of old exceptions are gone. Previously, if you reasonably believed no children would be present, you might have been in the clear.

Not anymore. As Hammond explains, the only real safe harbor now is compliance with Penal Code 25145. Meaning guns not under your immediate control must be locked up properly.

And “properly” now has a legal definition. Firearms must be secured using either a DOJ-approved firearm safety device (yes, those padlocks still count) or a gun safe that meets specific DOJ standards.

El Linka Dinka Doo

Now when and where was a law similar to this shot down (no pun intended)?

It'll take a decade to get it to the USSC

We have similar storage laws in Michigan. Don't know specifically how they compare to Californias but it still makes you think twice about leaving any guns unsecured.

Actually, it was SENATE Bill 53 from 2023-2024.

Here is the link to the version that was Chaptered.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca...ill_id=202320240SB53

They may have upped the punishment but keeping your gun secure has long been a California law. And, if a child does get your gun and shoots someone, I think the charge is fitting. I’m excluding a “child” that breaks into your home and steals your gun.

Wasn't this type of crap shot down by Heller and/or McDonald & confirmed by Bruen?

quote:

They may have upped the punishment but keeping your gun secure has long been a California law.

Starting some time in the early 2000s you had to show proof of a CA DOJ approved locking or storage device to even purchase a gun. One time I bought a gun and a cable lock, then returned the lock for a refund. We both probably broke, if not the letter of the law, definitely the spirit.

I do keep guns locked up when not in use - "use" being the one or two put out for home defense when at home - or left unattended, i.e., when not at home.

Hmm count me in the we pretty much already knew this and acted accordingly. Maybe harsher punishment and I don’t think that’s necessarily bad if you just leave your shit out for anyone to take. There’s quite a few laws and lawsuits in this state, but this one doesn’t bother me much.

quote:

Originally posted by dan03833:
Wasn't this type of crap shot down by Heller and/or McDonald & confirmed by Bruen?

Did any of those cases deal with firearm storage?

quote:

Originally posted by SigSauerP226:
Hmm count me in the we pretty much already knew this and acted accordingly. Maybe harsher punishment and I don’t think that’s necessarily bad if you just leave your shit out for anyone to take. There’s quite a few laws and lawsuits in this state, but this one doesn’t bother me much.

She was asking for it, right?

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by dan03833:
Wasn't this type of crap shot down by Heller and/or McDonald & confirmed by Bruen?

Did any of those cases deal with firearm storage?

Heller dealt with storage requirements that could be an impediment to self-defense. CA’s storage requirements may not be consistent within a historical view of firearms usage in America in light of Bruen:

CALIFORNIA TIGHTENS GUN STORAGE RULES WITH NEW RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS

Excerpt:

“CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

From a Second Amendment perspective, this law presents several constitutional concerns that merit careful examination. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) explicitly recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, particularly within the home. Justice Scalia’s majority opinion specifically struck down a D.C. law requiring firearms to be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock,” stating it made it “impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.”

California’s new storage requirements appear to create similar obstacles to the immediate use of firearms for self-defense. By mandating that all firearms be locked away or disabled unless being carried, the law effectively prevents homeowners from having ready access to their weapons during emergencies. This requirement seems to conflict directly with the Heller precedent, which recognized that self-defense needs can arise suddenly and without warning.

Furthermore, the recent New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) decision reinforced that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Storage requirements of this nature were virtually unknown at the time of the Founding, raising questions about whether such restrictions can withstand constitutional scrutiny under the Bruen framework.

Legal challenges to this law are likely to focus on:

The burden placed on the fundamental right of self-defense in the home
The lack of historical analogues for such restrictive storage requirements
The practical impossibility of using a firearm for emergency self-defense
The intrusion of government regulation into private homes”


As outlined in the OP, it seems to me, the difference is CA’s law doesn’t make storage itself legal or illegal, rather it makes proper storage a defense to allowing a minor or prohibited person access to your guns.

In other words, leaving your 590A1 on the kitchen table without a trigger lock isn’t a problem, but if a minor or prohibited person grabs it, commits a crime, walks outside, or whatever, then you can be charged with allowing that to happen and you don’t have the defense that it was “properly stored”.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by dan03833:
Wasn't this type of crap shot down by Heller and/or McDonald & confirmed by Bruen?

Did any of those cases deal with firearm storage?

Maybe I mis-remember, but I thought that it all had partly to do with safe storage laws in DC.

Gotta love the commies in Sacramento. Thanks, but I’ll keep mine in a holster on my right hip.

quote:

Originally posted by SigSauerP226:
Hmm count me in the we pretty much already knew this and acted accordingly. Maybe harsher punishment and I don’t think that’s necessarily bad if you just leave your shit out for anyone to take. There’s quite a few laws and lawsuits in this state, but this one doesn’t bother me much.

My locked door should be enough. If some scumbag breaks into my house and steals my shit, why should i be blamed for his/her actions? Do we blame victims of auto theft if the criminal speeds and kills someone or if the criminal drives under the influence?

^Why does your door have to be locked? Entering my property and taking what is mine is a crime and I shouldn't have to prevent people from committing crimes, they should know better. We need to get back to what makes America great and that is "I, Me, Mine."

EDIT: Someone taking from me on my property, they don't even need to know better, they just need not do it.

Really just Kali's latest "improvement" to its laws that make us safe from evil guns.

It's one of several new laws designed to make gun ownership harder for us here. What we need is to work on locking up the radical lib freedom haters.

quote:

Originally posted by egregore:

quote:

They may have upped the punishment but keeping your gun secure has long been a California law.

Starting some time in the early 2000s you had to show proof of a CA DOJ approved locking or storage device to even purchase a gun. One time I bought a gun and a cable lock, then returned the lock for a refund. We both probably broke, if not the letter of the law, definitely the spirit.

I do keep guns locked up when not in use - "use" being the one or two put out for home defense when at home - or left unattended, i.e., when not at home.

That has not been my experience. Several gun shops required a “safe affidavit”, which was just an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper where you affirmed that you had a safe place to store the gun. Recent experience has not even included that. I dunno if it is a combination of places that knew me and places that just chose not sweat that issue, or what.

Illinois passed a storage law also.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGguy229:
My locked door should be enough. If some scumbag breaks into my house and steals my shit, why should i be blamed for his/her actions? Do we blame victims of auto theft if the criminal speeds and kills someone or if the criminal drives under the influence?

I am not aware of a law on the books against it, but if someone were to leave their car unlocked with the keys in it, the car was stolen, and the thief had an accident injuring or killing someone I wouldn’t assume that some ambulance chasing scumbag^H^H^H^H uh, I mean enterprising attorney might not go after the owner (theft victim) on the crash victim’s behalf, particularly if the theft victim had significant assets. For some reason, I’d be more concerned about that happening in a place like Kommiefornia than a place like Texas, Montana, Wyoming, or Idaho. I’m not bagging on Kentucky, Tennessee, or any of the many other place where folks may be a little right thinking, the list would just get long if I listed all the states where the average citizen is more sane than the average citizen in CA.