California 20252026 Regular Session Status: Introduced 1 D cosponsors

SB 320 — Firearms: California Do Not Sell List.

Last action — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. 1
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Senate
  4. 4
    Passed Assembly
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 11, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.

Next likely step: a committee referral and hearing.

Prognosis

Stalled 28% · moderate confidence

Where this bill stands today.

Odds of enactment

Low

How often bills like it became law.

  • Introduced

    Current position in the legislative process.

  • 1 sponsor

    1 primary, 0 co-sponsors signed on.

  • Single-party support

    Sponsorship is currently within one party (1 D).

  • Cleared a recorded vote

    Passed 3 recorded votes so far.

Prognosis reads this bill's own signals — stage, sponsorship breadth, committee status, recorded votes and cross-state momentum. Odds come from a model trained on which bills have become law.

Summary

Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person that has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person that has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person that has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm. Existing law generally makes a violation of the Penal Code a misdemeanor. Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. This bill would, by November 1, 2027, require the Department of Justice to develop a process to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to, and subsequently remove their own name from, the California Do Not Sell List, with the purpose of preventing a person who has voluntarily registered on the list from passing a firearms eligibility check to purchase or acquire a firearm from a firearms dealer or through a private-party transaction while they are on the list. The bill would allow a person to add their name to the list by submitting specified information to a sheriff or municipal police department, and would require that sheriff or municipal police department to verify the information and send it to the Department of Justice. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would allow a person, after a specified period of time, to request removal from the list. The bill would require all information provided pursuant to these provisions be kept confidential, require this information be kept separate and apart from all other records maintained by the department, and require this information to be used only for the purposes described above. The bill would prohibit requiring a person to place themselves on the Do Not Sell List as a condition of employment or of receiving any benefits or services. By creating a new prohibition, this bill would create a new crime and therefore impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.

Bill Text

Action History

  1. Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

  2. May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.

  3. Set for hearing May 23.

  4. May 5 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.

  5. Set for hearing May 5.

  6. From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 2. Page 834.) (April 22). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

  7. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  8. Set for hearing April 22.

  9. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD.

  10. From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 533.) (March 25).

  11. From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

  12. Set for hearing March 25.

  13. Referred to Coms. on PUB. S. and JUD.

  14. From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 14.

  15. Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on · 3 voted No

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Votes

Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

Passed 11 Yea · 2 Nay
Party YeaNayPresentNot Voting
Democratic 11000
Republican 0200
Total 11200
% of votes cast 85%15%0%0%
How each member voted (13)
Member Party Vote
Allen, Benjamin Democratic Yea
Arreguín, Jesse Democratic Yea
Ashby, Angelique V. Democratic Yea
Caballero, Anna M. Democratic Yea
Durazo, Maria Elena Democratic Yea
Laird, John Democratic Yea
Stern, Henry I. Democratic Yea
Umberg, Thomas J. Democratic Yea
Wahab, Aisha Democratic Yea
Weber Pierson, M.D., Akilah Democratic Yea
Wiener, Scott D. Democratic Yea
Niello, Roger W. Republican Nay
Valladares, Suzette Martinez Republican Nay

Official roll call →

Subjects

public-safety
Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

What does SB 320 do?
Existing law makes possession of a firearm by certain classes of persons, including a convicted felon, a person convicted of specified misdemeanors, a person that has been found mentally incompetent to stand trial, a person that has been found not guilty of specified crimes by reason of insanity, or a person that has been placed under conservatorship, a crime. Existing law additionally makes it a crime to sell or give possession of a firearm to these classes of persons prohibited from owning a firearm. Existing law generally makes a violation of the Penal Code a misdemeanor. Existing law requires the Department of Justice, upon submission of firearm purchaser information by a licensed firearm dealer, to examine its records to determine whether a potential firearm purchaser is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. This bill would, by November 1, 2027, require the Department of Justice to develop a process to allow a person who resides in California to voluntarily add their own name to, and subsequently remove their own name from, the California Do Not Sell List, with the purpose of preventing a person who has voluntarily registered on the list from passing a firearms eligibility check to purchase or acquire a firearm from a firearms dealer or through a private-party transaction while they are on the list. The bill would allow a person to add their name to the list by submitting specified information to a sheriff or municipal police department, and would require that sheriff or municipal police department to verify the information and send it to the Department of Justice. By imposing additional duties on local law enforcement, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. This bill would allow a person, after a specified period of time, to request removal from the list. The bill would require all information provided pursuant to these provisions be kept confidential, require this information be kept separate and apart from all other records maintained by the department, and require this information to be used only for the purposes described above. The bill would prohibit requiring a person to place themselves on the Do Not Sell List as a condition of employment or of receiving any benefits or services. By creating a new prohibition, this bill would create a new crime and therefore impose a state-mandated local program. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that with regard to certain mandates no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. With regard to any other mandates, this bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs so mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
Who sponsors SB 320?
SB 320 is sponsored by Limón, Monique (Democratic).
What is the current status of SB 320?
This bill has been introduced in the Senate. Introduced February 11, 2025. It must pass committee before a floor vote.
Where can I track SB 320?
Track SB 320 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on SB 320

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Find my representatives → Run a campaign

Stay ahead of SB 320

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →