CA SB 15
deadFirearms.
California · 2025-2026 Regular Session · upper
Quick answers
Did CA SB 15 pass?
No. CA SB 15 did not pass — it was defeated or died in the legislative process (2026-02-02). Latest recorded action (2026-02-02): Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
What is CA SB 15 about?
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to conduct inspections of certain firearm dealers every 3 years in order to ensure compliance with specified requirements. Existing law requires inspections to include a sampling of between 25% and 50% of dealer records of each type. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a fee, up to $115, in order to cover various costs, including the costs of inspections. This bill would instead require the department's sampling of dealer records to include at least 25% of each record type. The bill would also authorize the department to periodically increase the inspection fee, as specified. The bill would require the department to annually inspect the 10 firearm dealer locations, as specified, with the highest percentage of total sales that were recovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime. The bill would require the department to conduct the inspections within 12 months of the release of its annual report unless the dealer location has been inspected within 6 months prior to the release of the report. Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the department any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified. The bill would also require firearm dealers, commencing January 1, 2028, to maintain inventory records, as specified, at their place of business in a manner prescribed by the department. The bill would additionally require firearm dealers to produce an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, certifying the accuracy of all records, upon request. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the department to keep a centralized list of all persons who meet the specified requirements of a dealer, licensee, or person licensed, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to remove various persons from this list, including those whose federal firearms license has expired or has been revoked. The bill would additionally authorize the department to remove a person from the centralized list who has willfully failed to comply with specified licensing requirements or who, among other things, failed to remedy violations discovered as a result of an inspection within 90 days of the inspection. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine and render a person ineligible for placement on the centralized list for 2 years from the date of removal from the list. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
Who sponsors CA SB 15?
Blakespear is the primary sponsor of CA SB 15, joined by 2 cosponsors.
Description
Existing law requires the Department of Justice to conduct inspections of certain firearm dealers every 3 years in order to ensure compliance with specified requirements. Existing law requires inspections to include a sampling of between 25% and 50% of dealer records of each type. Existing law authorizes the department to assess a fee, up to $115, in order to cover various costs, including the costs of inspections. This bill would instead require the department's sampling of dealer records to include at least 25% of each record type. The bill would also authorize the department to periodically increase the inspection fee, as specified. The bill would require the department to annually inspect the 10 firearm dealer locations, as specified, with the highest percentage of total sales that were recovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used in a crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime. The bill would require the department to conduct the inspections within 12 months of the release of its annual report unless the dealer location has been inspected within 6 months prior to the release of the report. Existing law directs law enforcement agencies to submit the description of a firearm that has been reported stolen, lost, found, recovered, or under observation directly to an automated Department of Justice system. Existing law requires these law enforcement agencies to report to the department any information in their possession necessary to identify and trace the history of a recovered firearm that is illegally possessed, has been used in a crime, or is suspected of having been used in a crime. Existing law requires the department to analyze this data and to submit an annual report to the Legislature summarizing this analysis, as specified. The bill would also require firearm dealers, commencing January 1, 2028, to maintain inventory records, as specified, at their place of business in a manner prescribed by the department. The bill would additionally require firearm dealers to produce an affidavit, under penalty of perjury, certifying the accuracy of all records, upon request. By expanding the crime of perjury, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. Existing law requires the department to keep a centralized list of all persons who meet the specified requirements of a dealer, licensee, or person licensed, except as specified. Existing law requires the department to remove various persons from this list, including those whose federal firearms license has expired or has been revoked. The bill would additionally authorize the department to remove a person from the centralized list who has willfully failed to comply with specified licensing requirements or who, among other things, failed to remedy violations discovered as a result of an inspection within 90 days of the inspection. The bill would make a violation of these provisions punishable by a fine and render a person ineligible for placement on the centralized list for 2 years from the date of removal from the list. 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 no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
- Introduced
- 2024-12-02
- Latest action
- 2026-02-02 — Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
- Bill type
- bill
- Last updated
- —
Subjects
Sponsors
- Blakespearauthor
- Limóncoauthor
- Rubiocoauthor
Committees
Not provided by source.
Action timeline
2024-12-02
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
introduction,reading-1,referral-committee
2024-12-03
From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 2.
2025-01-29
Referred to Com. on RLS.
referral-committee
2025-02-05
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-02-14
Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
referral-committee
2025-03-07
Set for hearing March 25.
2025-03-13
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-25
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on RLS. (Ayes 4. Noes 1. Page 532.) (March 25). Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
committee-passage,committee-passage-favorable,referral-committee
2025-03-26
From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on RLS.
amendment-passage,committee-passage,reading-1,reading-2,referral-committee
2025-03-27
Withdrawn from committee.
withdrawal
2025-03-27
Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
referral-committee
2025-04-02
Set for hearing April 7.
2025-04-07
April 7 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file.
2025-05-16
Set for hearing May 23.
2025-05-23
May 23 hearing: Held in committee and under submission.
2026-02-02
Returned to Secretary of Senate pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
failure
Versions
Documents
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- application/pdf
- text/html
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
- application/pdf(no extracted text yet)
Votes
Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Rules]
2025-03-25 · pass · 4-1
Member-level votes (6)
- Arreguín: yes
- Pérez: yes
- Gonzalez: yes
- Wiener: yes
- Seyarto: no
- Caballero: other
Placed on suspense file
2025-04-07 · pass · 7-0
Member-level votes (7)
- Richardson: yes
- Cabaldon: yes
- Grayson: yes
- Caballero: yes
- Seyarto: yes
- Wahab: yes
- Dahle: yes
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=SB 15. 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.