GOA Files Brief Attacking California’s Surveillance Mandate

We live in a day and age where cameras are pretty much everywhere. I’ve gotten traffic tickets by mail because of the blasted things, for example, and some places use them even more extensively than my hometown has even remotely considered. You just can’t get away from them.

But there are good things about cameras, too. Using them for security purposes is a good thing.

Requiring businesses to have them and store recordings indefinitely so the state can take a look whenever they want, even without probable cause, however? That’s an awful idea.

That’s California, though.

That’s right, California has exactly that as a mandate, which is incredibly problematic.

On May 29th, Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation announced they’d filed a brief in a case seeking to overturn the law.

Via a press release:

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have filed their opening brief in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, challenging California’s sweeping surveillance mandate on firearm dealers. This appeal is part of the ongoing case against Cal. Penal Code Section 26806, which forces all FFLs—including home-based dealers—to install 24/7 video and audio recording systems to surveil customers, and then retain that data for warrantless inspection by the state. 

The law effectively turns lawful dealers into unpaid government agents, violating First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendment rights by chilling speech and association, imposing unlawful searches, and commandeering private property without compensation or cause. 

GOA and GOF are joined in the appeal by Gun Owners of California (GOC) and multiple affected FFLs who object to California’s attempt to turn every gun store into a state surveillance hub. 

GOA, GOF, and GOC remain committed to challenging radical laws like this one, and will continue fighting in the courts to ensure that the rights of gun owners and dealers are protected without compromise. 

Sam Paredes, Executive Director of Gun Owners of California, issued the following statement on behalf of the Board of Directors for Gun Owners of America: 

“California’s surveillance regime treats law-abiding citizens like criminals and weaponizes government power against the firearms community. We’re appealing this unconstitutional overreach because freedom doesn’t survive when people live under constant government surveillance.” 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, added: 

“This law requires what is quite literally a 21st century Orwellian telescreen. California forces gun dealers to record private conversations, including within their own homes, and then hand them over to the government without a warrant. That’s not just invasive—it’s a direct attack on a number of constitutional rights. GOA and GOF are proud to lead this appeal and stand with every American who refuses to be tracked and silenced.”

Now, let’s think about what this bill does and, perhaps more importantly, what it can set the stage for it later.

First, this is a gross overreach as it creates a burden on lawful gun dealers, particularly those who sell from their home, that is beyond unreasonable. I mean, who wants a camera set up in their home that monitors things 24/7, that has to be available to state agents upon demand? First, that’s not cheap. The storage alone would be cost-prohibitive in the long run, but just installing the cameras isn’t cheap.

And kitchen table FFLs aren’t exactly rolling in money, as a general rule. They’re making very little from handling transfers, and I doubt most of them are actually making a large number of sales. Maybe at the odd gun show or something, but not enough to justify that financially.

Then we have what Pratt mentions above, that these devices would record private conversations in general, which would then have to be handed over to the state on demand. Those could include intimate details of one’s private life, things that you’d rather no one knew about. You should never have to face that concern, and yet, the state is trying to do just that.

Which, I think, is part of the point. They want to discourage FFLs as a general thing.

But let’s couple this mandate with what we know about technology as it stands right now.

With a recording of everyone buying and selling a firearm or even entering a gun store, coupled with facial recognition, the state of California has created a way to know exactly who is doing what with firearms. While the state has a gun registration law, not all firearms have to be registered. So-called assault weapons have to be, and so do handguns, but firearms that don’t qualify as either aren’t registered at all. That includes things like pump-action and semi-auto shotguns that are popular for both hunting and self-defense.

It’ll also pick up people trying to buy ammunition for firearms they may have purchased before moving to California, which would also add into this.

In short, this could be used to create an additional registry without actually telling people to register their guns. That’s troubling as hell, and calling it Orwellian is certainly the right term.

I sincerely hope this is shut down once and for all.