Ninth Circuit Upholds California Law Requiring 24/7 Audio and Video Surveillance at Gun Stores

On August 27, a divided Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld a California statute requiring all federally licensed firearm dealers to maintain continuous, 24-hour video and audio surveillance of their premises. The 2-1 decision in Richards v. Newsom preserves Senate Bill 1384, a law that took effect on January 1, 2024, and mandates that stores record all points of sale and retain the footage for a minimum of one year. The ruling resolves a multi-year legal challenge brought by a coalition of gun rights organizations and business owners, cementing one of the most expansive retail surveillance regimes in the country and establishing a precedent for how the state monitors highly regulated industries.[4][5]

Under California Penal Code Section 26806, dealers must install permanently mounted cameras that capture interior views of all entries, exits, and firearm display areas at no less than 15 frames per second. Crucially, the systems must also record audio of all transactions and conversations occurring inside the store. Dealers are required to post signs at every entrance featuring one-inch block letters that warn customers: 'THESE PREMISES ARE UNDER VIDEO AND AUDIO SURVEILLANCE. YOUR IMAGE AND CONVERSATIONS MAY BE RECORDED.' The mandate applies universally across the state, encompassing both traditional brick-and-mortar retail locations and independent dealers who operate their businesses out of their private residences.[3]

The plaintiffs—a coalition that included brick-and-mortar gun shops, home-based dealers, and advocacy groups like the Second Amendment Foundation—did not challenge the law under the Second Amendment. Instead, they argued the mandate violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. They contended that forcing businesses to continuously record customer conversations amounted to a warrantless search by the government. Furthermore, they argued the constant presence of state-mandated listening devices would chill the free exchange of information between dealers and buyers, and that forcing owners to purchase and operate the equipment constituted an illegal taking of private property.[2][5]

Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Lucy Koh, joined by Judge Ana de Alba, rejected those arguments entirely, concluding the plaintiffs failed to state a valid constitutional claim. Koh ruled that no Fourth Amendment search occurs simply because a private surveillance system records audiovisual data. Because the state does not physically intrude on the property to install the cameras, does not own the equipment, and cannot access the recordings without a warrant, a court order, or an ongoing administrative inspection, the court held that mere compliance with the law does not transform private gun dealers into state actors.[2][4]

California Attorney General Rob Bonta celebrated the ruling, framing the surveillance mandate as a necessary and constitutional tool for law enforcement. 'California is taking action to make our communities safer and today's decision confirms that we have the constitutional authority to do so,' Bonta stated on August 28. The California Department of Justice maintains that mandatory security cameras at gun stores help prevent crime and assist investigators in tracking stolen firearms and dismantling straw-purchasing rings, where a legal buyer illegally transfers a weapon to someone prohibited from owning one.[1]

U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth K. Lee issued a sharp dissent, specifically targeting the audio recording requirement as an 'unprecedented invasion' of privacy. While Lee conceded that mandatory video surveillance might pass constitutional muster to deter theft, he argued that capturing every spoken word between a dealer and a customer does nothing to stop a late-night burglar. Lee noted that even California's strict regulations on cannabis dispensaries only require video monitoring, not audio. 'Audio-recording of conversations at a gun store will not help law enforcement nab a thief,' Lee wrote, warning that the mandate would inevitably chill lawful First Amendment speech.[2]

The ruling cements California's position as an outlier in retail surveillance; while states like Illinois, New York, and Washington require video monitoring at gun stores, none mandate continuous audio recording. The plaintiffs have not yet announced whether they will petition for an en banc rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Until they do, the decision leaves home-based firearm dealers facing the immediate prospect of operating state-mandated listening devices inside their private residences, or surrendering their federal licenses entirely.[2][3]

The ruling cements California's position as an outlier in retail surveillance; while states like Illinois, New York, and Washington require video monitoring at gun stores, none mandate continuous audio recording. The plaintiffs have not yet announced whether they will petition for an en banc rehearing before the full Ninth Circuit or appeal directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Until they do, the decision leaves home-based firearm dealers facing the immediate prospect of operating state-mandated listening devices inside their private residences, or surrendering their federal licenses entirely.[2][3]