Proposition 63, titled the "Safety for All Act of 2016," was placed on the November 2016 ballot by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom through the initiative process and approved by 63.1% of voters.[1] It was the most significant voter-driven firearms regulation in California history, adding several new requirements that took effect in phases through 2019.
Ammunition Purchase Restrictions
Proposition 63's most impactful provision was the creation of a comprehensive ammunition purchase regulation system, implemented through DOJ regulations that took effect July 1, 2019:[2]
- Vendor licensing: Persons and businesses selling more than 500 rounds per month must hold an ammunition vendor license
- Point-of-sale eligibility checks: All ammunition purchases require a DOJ background check ($1 for standard, $19 for basic authorization)
- Face-to-face transactions: Ammunition must be purchased in person from a licensed vendor. Online and out-of-state purchases must be shipped to a licensed vendor for transfer.
- Record-keeping: Vendors must record and retain ammunition transaction data for five years
Large-Capacity Magazine Ban
Proposition 63 strengthened the existing large-capacity magazine (LCM) restrictions by adding a requirement that persons who lawfully possessed LCMs before the original ban dispose of them by July 1, 2017, through sale to a licensed dealer, transfer to law enforcement, destruction, or removal from the state. Previously, pre-ban possession was grandfathered.
This provision was challenged in Duncan v. Bonta[3] (formerly Duncan v. Becerra), which has been through multiple rounds of litigation. Judge Benitez struck down the possession ban in March 2019, creating a seven-day window ("Freedom Week") during which Californians could legally purchase standard-capacity magazines. On remand after the Supreme Court's Bruen decision, Judge Benitez again struck down Section 32310 in September 2023, but the Ninth Circuit stayed the ruling.
On March 20, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued an en banc opinion upholding the LCM ban in a 7-4 decision, holding that LCMs are "optional accessories" rather than protected "arms" under the Second Amendment.[4] Plaintiffs filed a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court on August 15, 2025 (Docket No. 25-198).[5] As of March 2026, the Court has distributed the case for conference nine times without granting or denying review. The LCM ban remains enforceable while the petition is pending.
Theft and Loss Reporting
Proposition 63 added Penal Code Section 25250, requiring firearm owners to report the theft or loss of a firearm to local law enforcement within five days of discovering the loss. Failure to report is an infraction for the first offense and a misdemeanor for subsequent offenses.
Prohibited Persons Relinquishment
The proposition strengthened the Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) by requiring the DOJ to complete court-ordered firearms relinquishment processes and by increasing funding for the APPS program, which cross-references gun ownership records against criminal and mental health databases to identify persons who have become prohibited from owning firearms after a lawful purchase.