California Forces Home-Based Gun Dealers to Record Private Conversations 24/7, Ninth Circuit Asked to Intervene

The Goldwater Institute is urging the Ninth Circuit to overturn California’s mandatory firearms dealer surveillance law, arguing that operating a lawful gun business does not mean surrendering constitutional privacy protections.

California is forcing federally licensed firearms dealers, including those operating businesses from their homes, to continuously record video and audio inside designated business areas, even when no firearms transactions are taking place. The recordings must be preserved for at least a year and made available to government authorities under the state’s inspection and access provisions.

Now, the Goldwater Institute is asking the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a ruling that allowed California’s 24-hour surveillance mandate to stand.

In an amicus brief filed October 23, 2026, Goldwater argues that the state’s recording requirement violates the First and Fourth Amendment rights of firearms dealers and threatens the privacy of customers, employees, and family members whose conversations can be captured by government-mandated microphones.

The case, Richards v. Newsom (No. 25-693), raises a constitutional question that extends beyond firearms sales: Can the government force Americans to record private conversations inside their homes simply because they operate a licensed business?

California’s 24-Hour Surveillance Mandate

Under California Penal Code § 26806, which took effect January 1, 2024, federally licensed firearms dealers must maintain a digital surveillance system that operates 24 hours a day.

The law requires cameras to monitor entrances and exits, firearm display areas, and points of sale. Cameras located inside the premises must also record audio. Dealers must preserve the recordings for at least one year and post signs warning customers that their images and conversations may be recorded.

The mandate applies to traditional gun stores and home-based FFLs alike.

Many firearms dealers already use security cameras to protect their inventory, employees, and customers. There is a substantial difference, however, between a business voluntarily installing security equipment and the government ordering that business to record conversations continuously for potential future inspection.

California’s law makes that recording mandatory, regardless of whether the dealer is conducting a firearm transaction, discussing legislation with a customer, or simply having a private conversation in a covered area after business hours.

The surveillance system must remain operational even when the store is closed.

Home-Based Gun Dealer’s Office Also Serves as a Law Practice

One of the plaintiffs, Adam Richards, is a California attorney who operates a federally licensed firearms business from a detached office on his residential property. Richards also uses the office for approximately half of his legal practice, including confidential telephone conversations with clients. His family members, including his children, visit him there.

Because California requires firearms dealers to maintain continuous recording equipment in designated business areas, conversations unrelated to selling firearms can be captured by the surveillance system. That includes discussions involving Richards’ legal practice and private conversations with family members when they occur within the monitored space.

Goldwater Institute Senior Attorney Tony Napolitano argues that the constitutional violation begins before government officials ever review the recordings.

“The constitutional injury begins when the state orders the cameras and microphones turned on—not merely when a bureaucrat presses play,” Napolitano wrote.

Goldwater’s argument challenges the idea that a business owner forfeits constitutional protections by entering a regulated industry. The organization contends that the government cannot use licensing requirements to compel Americans to create permanent recordings of private conversations for potential inspection.

Ninth Circuit Previously Upheld California’s Surveillance Law

As AmmoLand News reported in August, a divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the constitutional challenge to California’s surveillance mandate. The August 27, 2026, decision rejected claims that the law violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

Writing for the majority, Judge Lucy Koh concluded that requiring gun dealers to operate recording equipment does not, by itself, constitute a government search under the Fourth Amendment.

The majority reasoned that the plaintiffs had not alleged an actual physical government intrusion or government access to the recordings. It also rejected the argument that requiring dealers to operate the cameras transformed them into government agents. The court dismissed the First Amendment challenges, finding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently established that the recording requirement violated their rights to free speech, anonymity, or association.

Judge Kenneth Lee disagreed, issuing a partial dissent that warned about the consequences of compulsory audio surveillance. Lee questioned why California needed to record conversations continuously when the state’s stated reasons for the law involved preventing firearm thefts and investigating illegal straw purchases. Video footage could help identify someone stealing a firearm, but the dissent questioned what legitimate purpose was served by recording every conversation between a firearms dealer and customers.

Lee also emphasized the unusual nature of California’s requirement.

“Neither the federal government nor the other 49 states have ever enacted such an intrusive audio-recording requirement for any business activity,” Lee wrote.

The dissent recognized that gun stores are places where Americans regularly discuss firearms laws, constitutional rights, and political issues. Mandatory audio recording creates an additional concern when those discussions are preserved for possible government review.

Goldwater Seeks Full Ninth Circuit Review

Goldwater’s latest filing supports the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc, which would allow a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges to reconsider the panel’s ruling.

The organization’s October 23 amicus brief argues that the panel failed to properly account for the constitutional intrusion created by government-compelled recording.

According to Goldwater, the Fourth Amendment question should not depend entirely on whether a government agent has already accessed the footage.

California is requiring private citizens to create and preserve recordings of their activities and conversations for possible government inspection. Goldwater argues that the compelled creation of those records is itself constitutionally significant.

The brief also challenges the panel’s First Amendment reasoning, particularly its conclusion that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient chilling effect on protected speech.

Knowing that conversations about politics, legislation, and constitutional rights are being recorded and preserved can discourage people from engaging in those discussions, even if the government never reviews the recordings.

Goldwater further argues that California’s position threatens privacy protections in homes and offices used for multiple purposes. Simply operating a licensed business from a residence should not give the government authority to require surveillance of activities unrelated to that business.

Second Amendment Organizations Have Fought the Mandate for Years

Goldwater’s involvement adds another constitutional advocacy organization to a legal challenge already being pursued by several major Second Amendment groups. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California (GOC), and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) are among the plaintiffs challenging the recording requirement.

In September 2025, SAF and its partners filed an appellate reply brief arguing that California’s mandate violated multiple constitutional protections while imposing substantial financial burdens on lawful firearms businesses.

“This law violates not only the Fourth Amendment, but the First and Fifth as well,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said at the time. “The state has certainly hit the trifecta of infringement with this one.”

Kraut also criticized the expensive logistical requirements imposed on firearms businesses, arguing that the regulation discourages participation in a constitutionally protected industry.

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb warned that installing a compliant surveillance system could cost more than five figures, adding another financial burden to businesses already operating under California’s extensive firearms regulations.

The California case is not the only legal fight involving government inspection powers over home-based gun dealers.

In Pennsylvania, SAF is challenging regulations and inspection policies affecting firearms businesses, including dealers operating from private residences. That case, Schmidt v. Paris, similarly raises questions about whether the government can condition a firearms dealer’s license on surrendering constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

Both cases concern the limits of government authority over lawful firearms businesses and the constitutional rights of the people operating them.

A Firearms License Should Not Mean Surrendering Constitutional Rights

California’s recording mandate is particularly troubling because firearms dealers facilitate the exercise of a right expressly protected by the Second Amendment. Purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer is a lawful activity. So is discussing gun legislation, criticizing government officials, or organizing opposition to firearms restrictions.

The government should not be able to use the licensing process to impose unnecessary surveillance on those activities.

California has defended its law as a measure intended to prevent gun thefts and assist criminal investigations, but those objectives do not explain why the state needs year-round recordings of private conversations that have nothing to do with criminal activity.

The constitutional questions raised by Richards v. Newsom also extend beyond the firearms industry. If the government can require home-based FFLs to continuously record private conversations because they operate licensed businesses, other licensed occupations could face similar demands.

The Goldwater Institute is asking the Ninth Circuit to prevent that precedent from taking hold. For now, California’s mandatory surveillance requirement remains in effect while the plaintiffs seek rehearing. The full Ninth Circuit has not granted that request or overturned the August panel decision.

The outcome could determine how far California and other states may go in demanding that lawful business owners surrender privacy as a condition of remaining in business.

Operating a firearms business does not erase the Constitution, and the government should not be allowed to turn a citizen’s home office into a round-the-clock surveillance operation simply because that citizen holds an FFL.

Read the Goldwater Institute’s amicus brief in Richards v. Newsom and the Ninth Circuit’s August 27 decision.

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.