Bill Commons

CA AB 1078

enacted

Firearms.

California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · lower

Quick answers

Did CA AB 1078 pass?

Yes. CA AB 1078 has been enacted into law as of 2025-10-10. Latest recorded action (2025-10-10): Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 570, Statutes of 2025.

What is CA AB 1078 about?

(1) Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if certain requirements and other criteria are met, including, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Existing law requires a licensing authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether an applicant can receive or renew a license that includes, among other things, a review of all information provided in the application for a license, and a review of the information in the California Restraining and Protective Order System. Existing law prohibits the licensing authority from issuing a license if, among other things, the applicant has been convicted of contempt of court, has been subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, unless that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than 5 years prior to receipt of the completed application, or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, has been convicted of specified criminal statutes. This bill would also prohibit a licensing authority from issuing a license if an applicant was convicted of, under any federal law or law of any other state that includes comparable elements of, contempt of court or specified criminal statutes in the 10 years prior to the completed application, was subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, or is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as specified. Upon determining that an applicant is a disqualified person due to being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, the bill would require the licensing authority to, within 5 days, submit to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Index specified information of the disqualified person and supporting documentation, as specified. This bill would require the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. (2) Existing law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a firearm from carrying a firearm in specified places, including schools, government buildings, hospitals, zoos, parks, churches, and a bus, train, or other form of public transportation. Existing law exempts a firearm that is secured in a lock box, as specified, under certain circumstances, from these prohibitions. This bill would exempt a firearm that is unloaded and locked in a lock box for the purpose of transporting the firearm from the prohibition on carrying the firearm on a bus, train, or other form of public transportation, including a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public transportation authority. (3) Existing law requires, when a person applies for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, a licensing authority, as specified, to issue or renew a license if the applicant has provided proof that, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, including live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range, and the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued. This bill would clarify that these requirements for a new license or license renewal specifically apply to a California resident. For non-California residents, the bill would additionally require, among other requirements, the applicant to attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which the applicant has applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time, and that the applicant has completed live-fire shooting exercises for each pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry in California. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms to non-California residents and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. If a psychological assessment on an initial application to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is required by a licensing authority, existing law requires the applicant to be referred to a licensed psychologist acceptable to the licensing authority. This bill would authorize a licensing authority to allow a non-California resident applicant to satisfy this psychological assessment with a virtual psychological assessment, as specified, or approve this examination with a provider located within 75 miles of the applicant's residence. Existing law prohibits a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person from being issued if the Department of Justice determines that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law also requires this license to be revoked by the local licensing authority if, at any time, the local licensing authority determines that, among other reasons, the licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from owning or purchasing a firearm. This bill would revoke or prohibit the issuance of that license by the local licensing authority if any certain situation occurred, including that an applicant knowingly provides any inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with an application for a license, a license renewal, or an amendment to a license. The bill would require a licensee to inform the local authority that issued the license of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime and would prohibit the issuance of, or require the revocation of, that license based on the licensee's failure to inform the local licensing authority of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime. (4) Existing law prohibits a person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. Existing law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm to a purchaser when the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that, within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a firearm. Existing law requires a licensed dealer of firearms to conspicuously post a prescribed firearms safety warning message within the licensed premises, including that no person shall make an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period, and no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period. An existing federal district court order in a case pending appeal has enjoined the enforcement of the law limiting the number of firearms that a person is allowed to purchase in a 30-day period. This bill would, beginning April 1, 2026, increase the number of firearms that a person can apply to purchase within any 30-day period from one to 3 and would prohibit, beginning April 1, 2026, delivery of a firearm by a dealer if the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the purchaser has made an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than 3 firearms cumulatively within the 30-day period preceding the date of the application, as specified. The bill would make a conforming change to the required firearms safety warning. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for a person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a felony, as specified. Existing law makes those provisions inapplicable to a conviction or warrant for a felony if, both the conviction of a like offense under California law can only result in imposition of felony punishment and the defendant received either, or both, a sentence to a federal correctional facility for more than 30 days and a fine exceeding $1,000. This bill would additionally make those provisions inapplicable to a conviction for a nonviolent felony under the laws of any other state if the conviction has been vacated, set aside, expunged, or otherwise dismissed and, if the conviction resulted in a firearms prohibition, the conviction relief restored the firearms rights, or if the conviction did not involve the use of a dangerous weapon and the person received a pardon, as specified. (6) Existing law requires a licensing authority to give written notice to an applicant, who is applying for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, indicating if the license is approved or denied. Existing law requires the licensing authority to give this notice within 120 days of receiving the completed application for a new license or 30 days after receipt of specified information and report from the Department of Justice, whichever is later, and for a license renewal, the licensing authority has within 120 days of receiving the completed application to give this notice. In determining whether to approve or deny these applications, existing law requires the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date the licensing authority received the completed applications, except as specified. This bill would apply the 120-day notice requirement for a license renewal to a completed application for a license renewal submitted prior to September 1, 2026. For license renewal applications submitted on or after September 1, 2026, the bill would apply the above notice requirement for a completed application for a new license. The bill would delete the provision requiring the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date of receiving the completed application. 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 CA AB 1078?

Berman is the primary sponsor of CA AB 1078, joined by 1 cosponsor.

Description

(1) Existing law prohibits a person from carrying a concealed firearm or carrying a loaded firearm in public. Existing law authorizes a licensing authority, as specified, if certain requirements and other criteria are met, including, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, to issue a license to carry a concealed handgun or to carry a loaded and exposed handgun, as specified. Existing law requires a licensing authority to conduct an investigation to determine whether an applicant can receive or renew a license that includes, among other things, a review of all information provided in the application for a license, and a review of the information in the California Restraining and Protective Order System. Existing law prohibits the licensing authority from issuing a license if, among other things, the applicant has been convicted of contempt of court, has been subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, unless that order expired or was vacated or otherwise canceled more than 5 years prior to receipt of the completed application, or, in the 10 years prior to the licensing authority receiving the completed application, has been convicted of specified criminal statutes. This bill would also prohibit a licensing authority from issuing a license if an applicant was convicted of, under any federal law or law of any other state that includes comparable elements of, contempt of court or specified criminal statutes in the 10 years prior to the completed application, was subject to any restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, or is an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, as specified. Upon determining that an applicant is a disqualified person due to being an unlawful user of, or addicted to, any controlled substance, the bill would require the licensing authority to, within 5 days, submit to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Index specified information of the disqualified person and supporting documentation, as specified. This bill would require the review of the California Restraining and Protective Order System to include information concerning whether the applicant is reasonably likely to be a danger to self, others, or the community at large, as specified. By imposing new duties on local licensing authorities, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. The bill would additionally exempt from the licensure prohibition for applicants previously subject to a restraining order, protective order, or other type of court order, applicants who were previously subject to an above-described order that did not receive notice and an opportunity to be heard before the order was issued. (2) Existing law prohibits a person who is licensed to carry a firearm from carrying a firearm in specified places, including schools, government buildings, hospitals, zoos, parks, churches, and a bus, train, or other form of public transportation. Existing law exempts a firearm that is secured in a lock box, as specified, under certain circumstances, from these prohibitions. This bill would exempt a firearm that is unloaded and locked in a lock box for the purpose of transporting the firearm from the prohibition on carrying the firearm on a bus, train, or other form of public transportation, including a building, real property, or parking area under the control of a public transportation authority. (3) Existing law requires, when a person applies for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, a licensing authority, as specified, to issue or renew a license if the applicant has provided proof that, among other things, the applicant has completed a specified course of training, including live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range, and the applicant is the recorded owner of the pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the license will be issued. This bill would clarify that these requirements for a new license or license renewal specifically apply to a California resident. For non-California residents, the bill would additionally require, among other requirements, the applicant to attest, under oath, that the jurisdiction in which the applicant has applied is the primary location in California in which they intend to travel or spend time, and that the applicant has completed live-fire shooting exercises for each pistol, revolver, or other firearm for which the applicant is applying to be licensed to carry in California. By requiring local agencies to issue licenses for concealed firearms to non-California residents and expanding the scope of the crime of perjury, this bill would create a state-mandated local program. If a psychological assessment on an initial application to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person is required by a licensing authority, existing law requires the applicant to be referred to a licensed psychologist acceptable to the licensing authority. This bill would authorize a licensing authority to allow a non-California resident applicant to satisfy this psychological assessment with a virtual psychological assessment, as specified, or approve this examination with a provider located within 75 miles of the applicant's residence. Existing law prohibits a license to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person from being issued if the Department of Justice determines that the applicant is prohibited by state or federal law from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. Existing law also requires this license to be revoked by the local licensing authority if, at any time, the local licensing authority determines that, among other reasons, the licensee is prohibited by state or federal law from owning or purchasing a firearm. This bill would revoke or prohibit the issuance of that license by the local licensing authority if any certain situation occurred, including that an applicant knowingly provides any inaccurate or incomplete information in connection with an application for a license, a license renewal, or an amendment to a license. The bill would require a licensee to inform the local authority that issued the license of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime and would prohibit the issuance of, or require the revocation of, that license based on the licensee's failure to inform the local licensing authority of any restraining order or arrest, charge, or conviction of a specified crime. (4) Existing law prohibits a person from making an application to purchase more than one firearm within any 30-day period. Existing law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm to a purchaser when the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that, within the preceding 30-day period, the purchaser has made another application to purchase a firearm. Existing law requires a licensed dealer of firearms to conspicuously post a prescribed firearms safety warning message within the licensed premises, including that no person shall make an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period, and no delivery shall be made to any person who has made an application to purchase more than one firearm, as specified, within any 30-day period. An existing federal district court order in a case pending appeal has enjoined the enforcement of the law limiting the number of firearms that a person is allowed to purchase in a 30-day period. This bill would, beginning April 1, 2026, increase the number of firearms that a person can apply to purchase within any 30-day period from one to 3 and would prohibit, beginning April 1, 2026, delivery of a firearm by a dealer if the dealer is notified by the Department of Justice that the purchaser has made an application to purchase one or more firearms that would result in the purchase of more than 3 firearms cumulatively within the 30-day period preceding the date of the application, as specified. The bill would make a conforming change to the required firearms safety warning. (5) Existing law makes it a crime for a person to own or possess a firearm if the person has been convicted of a felony, as specified. Existing law makes those provisions inapplicable to a conviction or warrant for a felony if, both the conviction of a like offense under California law can only result in imposition of felony punishment and the defendant received either, or both, a sentence to a federal correctional facility for more than 30 days and a fine exceeding $1,000. This bill would additionally make those provisions inapplicable to a conviction for a nonviolent felony under the laws of any other state if the conviction has been vacated, set aside, expunged, or otherwise dismissed and, if the conviction resulted in a firearms prohibition, the conviction relief restored the firearms rights, or if the conviction did not involve the use of a dangerous weapon and the person received a pardon, as specified. (6) Existing law requires a licensing authority to give written notice to an applicant, who is applying for a new license or license renewal to carry a pistol, revolver, or other firearm capable of being concealed upon the person, indicating if the license is approved or denied. Existing law requires the licensing authority to give this notice within 120 days of receiving the completed application for a new license or 30 days after receipt of specified information and report from the Department of Justice, whichever is later, and for a license renewal, the licensing authority has within 120 days of receiving the completed application to give this notice. In determining whether to approve or deny these applications, existing law requires the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date the licensing authority received the completed applications, except as specified. This bill would apply the 120-day notice requirement for a license renewal to a completed application for a license renewal submitted prior to September 1, 2026. For license renewal applications submitted on or after September 1, 2026, the bill would apply the above notice requirement for a completed application for a new license. The bill would delete the provision requiring the licensing authority to apply the statutory requirements in effect as of the date of receiving the completed application. 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.

Introduced
2025-04-01
Latest action
2025-10-10 — Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 570, Statutes of 2025.
Bill type
bill
Last updated

Subjects

Sponsors

  • Bermanauthor
  • Blakespearcoauthor

Committees

Not provided by source.

Action timeline

  1. 2025-02-20

    Read first time. To print.

    reading-1

  2. 2025-02-21

    From printer. May be heard in committee March 23.

  3. 2025-03-10

    Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  4. 2025-03-24

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Hearing canceled at the request of author.

  5. 2025-04-01

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. Read second time and amended.

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  6. 2025-04-02

    Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  7. 2025-04-09

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 6. Noes 2.) (April 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  8. 2025-04-30

    In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to suspense file.

    referral-committee

  9. 2025-05-23

    From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 10. Noes 3.) (May 23).

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  10. 2025-05-27

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  11. 2025-06-02

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 57. Noes 19. Page 1875.)

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  12. 2025-06-03

    In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment.

    reading-1,referral-committee

  13. 2025-06-11

    Referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    referral-committee

  14. 2025-06-26

    From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee

  15. 2025-07-08

    From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 5. Noes 1.) (July 8). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.

    committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee

  16. 2025-08-18

    In committee: Referred to suspense file.

    referral-committee

  17. 2025-08-29

    From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended. (Ayes 5. Noes 2.) (August 29).

    amendment-introduction,amendment-passage,committee-passage

  18. 2025-08-29

    Read second time and amended. Ordered returned to second reading.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2

  19. 2025-09-02

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  20. 2025-09-04

    Read third time and amended. Ordered to second reading.

    amendment-passage,reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  21. 2025-09-08

    Read second time. Ordered to third reading.

    reading-1,reading-2,reading-3

  22. 2025-09-09

    Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 29. Noes 10. Page 2671.).

    passage,reading-1,reading-3

  23. 2025-09-09

    In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending.

  24. 2025-09-11

    Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 57. Noes 20. Page 3284.).

    amendment-passage,committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable

  25. 2025-09-23

    Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.

    executive-receipt

  26. 2025-10-10

    Approved by the Governor.

    executive-signature

  27. 2025-10-10

    Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 570, Statutes of 2025.

    became-law

Versions

  • 02/20/25 - Introduced — 2025-02-20Compare
  • 04/01/25 - Amended Assembly — 2025-04-01Compare
  • 06/26/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-06-26Compare
  • 08/29/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-08-29Compare
  • 09/04/25 - Amended Senate — 2025-09-04Compare
  • 09/15/25 - Enrolled — 2025-09-15Compare
  • 10/10/25 - Chaptered — 2025-10-10Compare
  • AB1078Compare
  • (document, no version)Compare

Documents

Votes

  • Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2025-04-08 · pass · 6-2

    Member-level votes (9)
    • Mark González: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Lackey: no
    • Alanis: no
    • Nguyen: other
  • Do pass.

    2025-05-23 · pass · 10-3

    Member-level votes (15)
    • Calderon: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Ta: no
    • Dixon: no
    • Tangipa: no
    • Sanchez: other
    • Arambula: other
  • AB 1078 Berman Assembly Third Reading

    2025-06-02 · pass · 57-19

    Member-level votes (79)
    • Addis: yes
    • Garcia: yes
    • Lee: yes
    • Rivas: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Michelle Rodriguez: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Blanca Rubio: yes
    • Muratsuchi: yes
    • Patel: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Gabriel: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Ávila Farías: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Quirk-Silva: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Gipson: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Boerner: yes
    • Alvarez: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Berman: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Zbur: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Valencia: yes
    • Gallagher: no
    • Patterson: no
    • Chen: no
    • Ellis: no
    • Jeff Gonzalez: no
    • Dixon: no
    • DeMaio: no
    • Wallis: no
    • Tangipa: no
    • Davies: no
    • Alanis: no
    • Macedo: no
    • Castillo: no
    • Sanchez: no
    • Hoover: no
    • Lackey: no
    • Ta: no
    • Flora: no
    • Hadwick: no
    • Bains: other
    • Soria: other
    • Arambula: other
  • Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations]

    2025-07-08 · pass · 5-1

    Member-level votes (6)
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Seyarto: no
  • Placed on suspense file

    2025-08-18 · pass · 7-0

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Seyarto: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Dahle: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Grayson: yes
  • Do pass as amended

    2025-08-29 · pass · 5-2

    Member-level votes (7)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Dahle: no
    • Seyarto: no
  • 3rd Reading AB1078 Berman et al. By Blakespear

    2025-09-09 · pass · 29-10

    Member-level votes (40)
    • Richardson: yes
    • Menjivar: yes
    • Cortese: yes
    • Weber Pierson: yes
    • McNerney: yes
    • Stern: yes
    • Smallwood-Cuevas: yes
    • Becker: yes
    • McGuire: yes
    • Cervantes: yes
    • Cabaldon: yes
    • Rubio: yes
    • Durazo: yes
    • Laird: yes
    • Padilla: yes
    • Limón: yes
    • Pérez: yes
    • Reyes: yes
    • Archuleta: yes
    • Wiener: yes
    • Ashby: yes
    • Arreguín: yes
    • Grayson: yes
    • Allen: yes
    • Gonzalez: yes
    • Caballero: yes
    • Wahab: yes
    • Umberg: yes
    • Blakespear: yes
    • Niello: no
    • Ochoa Bogh: no
    • Dahle: no
    • Grove: no
    • Jones: no
    • Valladares: no
    • Seyarto: no
    • Strickland: no
    • Choi: no
    • Alvarado-Gil: no
    • Hurtado: other
  • AB 1078 Berman Concurrence in Senate Amendments

    2025-09-11 · pass · 57-20

    Member-level votes (80)
    • Ahrens: yes
    • Mark González: yes
    • Quirk-Silva: yes
    • Gipson: yes
    • Rogers: yes
    • Addis: yes
    • Ward: yes
    • Haney: yes
    • Hart: yes
    • Fong: yes
    • Elhawary: yes
    • Calderon: yes
    • Wilson: yes
    • Carrillo: yes
    • Ransom: yes
    • Michelle Rodriguez: yes
    • Berman: yes
    • Valencia: yes
    • Wicks: yes
    • Celeste Rodriguez: yes
    • Connolly: yes
    • Schultz: yes
    • Bauer-Kahan: yes
    • Bennett: yes
    • Papan: yes
    • Schiavo: yes
    • Bonta: yes
    • Ávila Farías: yes
    • Aguiar-Curry: yes
    • Pacheco: yes
    • Boerner: yes
    • Alvarez: yes
    • Lee: yes
    • Stefani: yes
    • Caloza: yes
    • Sharp-Collins: yes
    • Nguyen: yes
    • Ortega: yes
    • Solache: yes
    • Lowenthal: yes
    • Blanca Rubio: yes
    • Jackson: yes
    • Bryan: yes
    • Petrie-Norris: yes
    • Harabedian: yes
    • Gabriel: yes
    • Zbur: yes
    • McKinnor: yes
    • Pellerin: yes
    • Muratsuchi: yes
    • Krell: yes
    • Irwin: yes
    • Ramos: yes
    • Patel: yes
    • Kalra: yes
    • Rivas: yes
    • Garcia: yes
    • Johnson: no
    • Dixon: no
    • Jeff Gonzalez: no
    • Castillo: no
    • Alanis: no
    • Wallis: no
    • Patterson: no
    • Ta: no
    • Hoover: no
    • Gallagher: no
    • Macedo: no
    • Ellis: no
    • Davies: no
    • DeMaio: no
    • Hadwick: no
    • Tangipa: no
    • Lackey: no
    • Sanchez: no
    • Chen: no
    • Flora: no
    • Soria: other
    • Arambula: other
    • Bains: other

Related bills

No related bills recorded for this bill.

Official source

Attribution

Data from openstates_bulk_csv, retrieved 2026-07-24T01:34:27.960412Z

Inspect retained evidence for changes recorded after evidence tracking began:

Use this data

Every field on this page is available from the free public API — no key or licence required. Fetch this bill as JSON: GET /api/v1/bills?jurisdiction=CA&identifier=AB 1078. See the API docs or the MCP server for AI assistants.

Known limitations

  • Sponsor party and chamber affiliation are not yet captured by this API.
  • Committee referrals are not yet captured.
  • Some documents have no extracted text yet, so version comparison may be limited.

See the methodology page for data sources and limitations.