Proposition 63 (2016):
Safety for All

Proposition 63, titled the "Safety for All Act of 2016," was an initiative statute on the November 2016 ballot supported by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom 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 and Senate Bill 1235 established an ammunition purchase authorization system. DOJ eligibility checks began on July 1, 2019.^[2]

• Vendor licensing: Persons and businesses selling more than 500 rounds in any 30-day period must hold an ammunition vendor license, with licensed firearms dealers automatically deemed licensed ammunition vendors
• Point-of-sale eligibility checks: Ammunition purchases generally require DOJ approval ($5 for a standard eligibility check, $19 for a basic eligibility check)
• 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 ammunition transaction information and electronically submit it to DOJ

Large-Capacity Magazine Ban

Proposition 63 strengthened the existing large-capacity magazine (LCM) restrictions by requiring persons who could not lawfully possess them beginning July 1, 2017, including nonexempt pre-ban possessors, to remove them from the state, sell them to a licensed firearms dealer, or surrender them to law enforcement for destruction before July 1, 2017. 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 the October 15, 2026 docket capture, the petition remains pending without a grant or denial of review. The LCM ban remains enforceable while the petition is pending.

Theft and Loss Reporting

Proposition 63 added Penal Code Section 25250, requiring persons who own or possess a firearm to report its theft or loss to local law enforcement in the jurisdiction where it occurred within five days of when they knew or reasonably should have known of the theft or loss, except for antique firearms. Failure to report is an infraction for the first offense and a misdemeanor for subsequent offenses.

Prohibited Persons Relinquishment

Proposition 63 required courts to assign probation officers to investigate firearm ownership and report on relinquishment after specified convictions. Ammunition authorization fees support the ammunition authorization program through the Ammunition Safety and Enforcement Special Fund. The Armed Prohibited Persons System (APPS) 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.