California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016)

California Proposition 63
Election date November 8, 2016
Topic Firearms
Status a Approved
Type State statute	Origin Citizens

2016 measures
June 7
Proposition 50 a
November 8
Proposition 51 a
Proposition 52 a
Proposition 53 d
Proposition 54 a
Proposition 55 a
Proposition 56 a
Proposition 57 a
Proposition 58 a
Proposition 59 a
Proposition 60 d
Proposition 61 d
Proposition 62 d
Proposition 63 a
Proposition 64 a
Proposition 65 d
Proposition 66 a
Proposition 67 a
Polls
Voter guides
Campaign finance
Signature costs

California Proposition 63, the Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban Initiative, was on the November 8, 2016, ballot in California as an initiated state statute. It was approved.

A "yes" vote supported prohibiting the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines (more than 10 rounds) and requiring certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.

A "no" vote opposed this proposal to prohibit the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines and require certain individuals to pass a background check in order to purchase ammunition.

Aftermath

Duncan v. Bonta

  

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violate the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit (originated in United States District Court for the Southern District of California)
Ruling: Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines deemed constitutional by Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, Christopher Waddell, and California & Pistol Association, Inc.	Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta (previously Attorney General Xavier Becerra)
Plaintiff argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines violated the plaintiffs' Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms	Defendant argument: Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was constitutional

  Source: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

On May 17, 2017, five residents of San Diego County and the California Rifle & Pistol Association filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the U.S. District Court for Southern California. Plaintiffs said that California Penal Code Section 32310, as amended by Proposition 63, violated the Second Amendment, Takings Clause, and Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Proposition 63 added Section 32310(c), which was designed to make the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines an infraction or misdemeanor. The initiative also added 32310(d), which required owners of large-capacity ammunition magazines to dispossess of the magazines by removing them from the state, selling them to a licensed firearms dealer, or surrendering them to a law enforcement agency. These sections of Proposition 63 were set to go into effect on July 1, 2017.

On June 29, 2017, Judge Roger Benitez ordered Attorney General Becerra to not enforce or implement Proposition 63's Section 32310(c) and Section 32310(d). Judge Benitez's order was a preliminary injunction, meaning the order was temporary pending conclusion of the legal case. Judge Benitez said Proposition 63's section on large-capacity magazines was likely unconstitutional because it "burdens the core of the Second Amendment by criminalizing the mere possession of these magazines that are commonly held by law-abiding citizens for defense of self, home, and state." He also stated, "The State of California’s desire to criminalize simple possession of a firearm magazine able to hold more than 10 rounds is precisely the type of policy choice that the Constitution takes off the table."

On July 27, 2017, Attorney General Xavier Becerra appealed the district court's injunction to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 17, 2018, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction. The three-judge panel said, "The district court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that magazines for a weapon likely fall within the scope of the Second Amendment."

On March 29, 2019, Judge Roger Benitez ruled that Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violated the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. He wrote, "The statute hits at the center of the Second Amendment and its burden is severe." Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), who supported Proposition 63 in 2016, responded to the judge's ruling, saying, "This District Court Judge's failure to uphold a ban on high-capacity magazines is indefensible, dangerous for our communities and contradicts well-established case law. I strongly disagree with the court's assessment that 'the problem of mass shootings is very small.' Our commitment to public safety and defending common sense gun safety laws remains steadfast." Judge Benitez stayed his decision on April 5, 2019, pending an appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On August 14, 2020, a Ninth Circuit three-judge panel affirmed Benitez's ruling. Judge Kenneth Lee wrote the majority's opinion, which stated that Proposition 63's ban on large-capacity magazines violated the Second Amendment. He wrote, "The state could ban virtually anything if the test is merely whether something causes social ills when someone other than its lawful owner misuses it. Adopting such a radical position would give the government carte blanche to restrict the people’s liberties under the guise of protecting them."

On June 22, 2021, the Ninth Circuit agreed to hear the case en banc, rather than with a three-judge panel. On November 30, the Ninth Circuit reversed the prior orders, ruling that the ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines was constitutional. The majority opinion stated that the ban was "a reasonable fit for the important government interest of reducing gun violence." Judge Susan Graber wrote, "The statute outlaws no weapon, but only limits the size of the magazine that may be used with firearms. ... there is no evidence that anyone ever has been unable to defend his or her home and family due to the lack of a large capacity magazine." Judge Patrick Bumatay, one of the dissenting judges, wrote, "While the court can acknowledge that California asserts a public safety interest, it cannot bend the law to acquiesce to a policy that contravenes the clear decision made by the American people when they ratified the Second Amendment."

On June 30, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the capacity-magazine ban due to its ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen. The court remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit to consider the case in light of the ruling in Bruen.

On September 22, 2023, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled the ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines was unconstitutional. He said, "Based on the text, history and tradition of the 2nd Amendment, this law is clearly unconstitutional." The decision is stayed for 10 days while Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) appeals the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

On March 20, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the ban on large-capacity ammunition does not violate the Second Amendment. California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D) said, "This commonsense restriction on how many rounds a gunman can fire before they must pause to reload has been identified as a critical intervention to limit a lone shooter's capacity to turn shootings into mass casualty attacks. Let me be clear, this law saves lives. Today's ruling is an important win, not only in this case in our broader efforts to protect California communities from gun violence."

Rhode v. Bonta

Lawsuit overview
Issue: Does Proposition 63's provision governing out-of-state ammunition purchases violate the Second Amendment and impose an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce?
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Ruling: Proposition 13's provision regarding ammunition purchases violates the Second Amendment and interstate commerce clause; upheld by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Plaintiff(s): Kim Rhode, Gary Brennan, Cory Henry, Edward Johnson, Scott Lindemuth, Richard Ricks, Denise Welvang, California Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc., Able’s Sporting, Inc., AMDEP Holdings, LLC, R&S Firearms, Inc.,	Defendant(s): Attorney General Rob Bonta

  Source: United States District Court for the Southern District of California

On April 26, 2018, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, seven individuals, and three businesses filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Xavier Becerra in the U.S. District Court for Southern California. The lawsuit argued that provisions of Proposition 63—including provisions prohibiting most California residents from purchasing ammunition outside the state and bringing it into the state without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer—violated the Second Amendment and imposed an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce.

On April 23, 2020, Judge Roger Benitez ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, placing an injunction on Proposition 63's provisions regarding purchasing ammunition outside the state without going through a licensed dealer. Judge Benitez wrote, "The experiment has been tried. The casualties have been counted. California’s new ammunition background check law misfires and the Second Amendment rights of California citizens have been gravely injured." On April 25, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed Judge Benitez's decision, meaning the law would remain in effect pending a court ruling.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments in the case on November 9, 2020.On November 17, 2022, the preliminary injunction was vacated and remanded to the district court following the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen.

On January 31, 2024, Judge Roger Benitez ordered a permanent injunction against enforcing the law. The defendants appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit on the same day.

On July 24, 2025, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit upheld Benitez's permanent injunction, finding that the law violated the Second Amendment. Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote the opinion and said, "By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms."

On August 7, 2025, Attorney General Bonta filed a petition for rehearing with an entire panel of the Ninth Circuit.

Election results

Proposition 63
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		8,663,159	63.08%
No		5,070,772	36.92%

Election results from California Secretary of State

Overview

Regulation of ammunition in California

In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation requires individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. The legislation also required sellers to conduct background checks of purchasers with the Department of Justice. Some provisions of the legislation repealed and replaced parts of Proposition 63.

Changes to state law

Proposition 63 required individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a permit. The measure mandated dealers to check this permit before selling ammunition. The measure also eliminated several exemptions to the large-capacity magazines ban and increased the penalty for possessing them. Proposition 63 enacted a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms.

Proposition 47 of 2014 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. Therefore, stealing a gun valued at less than $950 is a misdemeanor. Proposition 63 made stealing a gun, including one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

State of the ballot measure campaigns

Yes on Prop 63 outraised opponents four to one. Supporters received $4.56 million, while opposing committees raised $1.06 million. The California Democratic Party, a supporter of Proposition 63, contributed $1.15 million to the campaign. The National Rifle Association was against the initiative and contributed $95,000 to opponents. Polls indicated that around 68 percent of residents supported Proposition 63 prior to the election.

Initiative design

Requirements to buy ammo

Proposition 63 was designed to require individuals who wish to purchase ammunition to first obtain a four-year permit from the California Department of Justice. The measure required dealers to check this permit before selling ammunition. California enacted legislation in July 2016 that repealed this provision and instead mandated dealers to check with the Department of Justice to determine if the buyer is authorized to purchase. The background checks requirement went into effect on July 1, 2019.

Licenses to sell ammo

In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation required individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less of ammunition per month for hunting trips were not required to obtain a license.

Proposition 63 established a misdemeanor penalty for failing to follow these dealer licensing requirements.

Large-capacity magazines

California banned large-capacity magazines for most individuals in 2000. Individuals who had large-capacity magazines before 2000 were allowed to keep the magazines. Proposition 63 removed the ownership exemption for pre-2000 owners of large-capacity magazines. The measure provided for charging individuals who do not comply with it with an infraction. The definition in state law and the definition applicable for Proposition 63 says that any magazine that contains more than 10 rounds of ammunition is a large-capacity magazine.

In 2019, Judge Roger Benitez of the U.S. District Court for Southern California blocked this section of Proposition 63 from going into effect in Duncan v. Becerra.

Court removal of firearms

Proposition 63 enacted a court process that attempts to ensure prohibited individuals do not continue to have firearms. The measure required courts to inform individuals prohibited from owning a firearm that they must turn their firearms over to local law enforcement, sell their firearms to a licensed dealer, or give their firearms to a dealer for storage. Proposition 63 also required probation officers to check and report on what prohibited individuals did with their firearms.

Out-of-state purchases

Starting in July 2019, the July 2016 legislation would have prohibited most California residents from purchasing ammunition outside the state and bringing it into the state without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer. Proposition 63 moved up the start date of this law to January 2018. It also made bringing out-of-state ammunition into the state or purchasing ammo online without first delivering it to a dealer an infraction.

Reporting theft

The measure required dealers of ammunition to report a theft or loss within 48 hours. It required individuals to report a theft or loss within five days to local law enforcement. Failure to report was considered an infraction under the initiative.

Penalty for theft

Proposition 47 of 2014 made stealing an item that is valued at less than $950 a misdemeanor. Therefore, stealing a gun valued at less than $950 was a misdemeanor.

Proposition 63 made stealing a gun, including one valued at less than $950, a felony punishable by up to three years in prison.

Text of measure

Ballot title

The official ballot title was as follows:

“

Firearms. Ammunition Sales. Initiative Statute.

”

Ballot summary

The long-form ballot summary was as follows:

“

Requires individuals to pass a background check and obtain Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and requires their disposal, as specified. Requires most ammunition sales be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to Department of Justice. Requires lost or stolen firearms and ammunition be reported to law enforcement. Prohibits persons convicted of stealing a firearm from possessing firearms. Establishes new procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession. Requires Department of Justice to provide information about prohibited persons to federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

”

The shorter ballot label summary was as follows:

“

Requires background check and Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines. Establishes procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by specified persons. Requires Department of Justice’s participation in federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Fiscal Impact: Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted.

”

Petition summary

The long-form, official ballot summary for Proposition 63 was changed from the initial summary provided to initiative proponents for the purpose of circulating the initiative for signature collection. The original summary provided for inclusion on signature petition sheets was:

“

Prohibits possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, and requires their disposal by sale to dealer, destruction, or removal from state. Requires most individuals to pass background check and obtain Department of Justice authorization to purchase ammunition. Requires most ammunition sales be made through licensed ammunition vendors and reported to Department of Justice. Requires lost or stolen firearms and ammunition be reported to law enforcement. Prohibits persons convicted of stealing a firearm from possessing firearms. Establishes new procedures for enforcing laws prohibiting firearm possession by felons and violent criminals. Requires Department of Justice to provide information about prohibited persons to federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

”

Fiscal impact

Note: The fiscal impact statement for a California ballot initiative authorized for circulation is jointly prepared by the state's legislative analyst and its director of finance.

The statement was as follows:

“

Increased state and local court and law enforcement costs, potentially in the tens of millions of dollars annually, related to a new court process for removing firearms from prohibited persons after they are convicted. Potential increase in state costs, not likely to exceed the millions of dollars annually, related to regulating ammunition sales. These costs would likely be offset by fee revenues. Potential net increase in state and local correctional costs, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually, related to changes in firearm and ammunition penalties.

”

Full text

The full text of Proposition 63 can be found here.

Support

Yes on Prop 63, also known as Safety for All, led the campaign in support of Proposition 63. The measure was developed by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D).

Supporters

Officials

Yes on Prop 63’s “Join the Fight"

• Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D)
• U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D)
• U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D)
• Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D)
• Sen. Kevin de León (D-24)
• Asm. Toni Atkins (D-78)
• Asm. Evan Low (D-28)
• Asm. Matthew Dababneh (D-45)

Former officials

• Asm. John Perez (D-53)

Parties

• California Democratic Party
• California Young Democrats
• Santa Monica Democratic Club

Local government

Local officials Mayor Sam Liccardo, San Jose Mayor Libby Schaaf, Oakland Mayor Ed Lee, San Francisco Mayor Helene Schneider, Santa Barbara Mayor Gary Phillips, San Rafael Mayor Carol Dutra-Vernaci, Union City Mayor Sue Digre, Pacifica Mayor Erin Tollini, Tiburon Mayor Barry Chang, Cupertino Mayor Jim Ruane, San Bruno Mayor Bill Kampe, Pacific Grove Mayor Pete Sanchez, Suisun City Mayor Donna Rutherford, East Palo Alto Mayor Catherine Way, Larkspur Mayor Lindsey Horvath, West Hollywood Mayor Robert Moon, Palm Springs Mayor Claire McAuliffe, Belvedere Mayor Bao Nguyen, Garden Grove Mayor Pro Tem Lori Wilson, Suisun City Mayor Pro Tem Lou La Monte Mayor Pro Tem Vicente Sarmiento San Francisco Board of Supervisors San Francisco Board of Education City Councilmember Donald Mosier City Councilmember Lara DeLaney City Councilmember Courtland Booze City Councilmember Beach Kuhl City Councilmember Donna Rutherford City Councilmember Liz Kniss City Councilmember Nathaniel Bates City Councilmember Ron Collins City Councilmember Tom DuBois City Councilmember Beth Krom City Councilmember Susan Wengraf City Councilmember Gabe Kearny City Councilmember Gabriel Quinto City Councilmember Jeff Aalfs City Councilmember Karen Holman City Councilmember Rishi Kumar City Councilmember Rod Sinks City Councilmember Sandra Donnell City Councilmember Dan Kalb City Councilmember at Large Rebecca Kaplan City Councilmember Richelle Noryoan City Councilmember Paul Krekorian Community College Board Member Maurice Goodman Community College Trustee Alex Randolph County Supervisor Damon Donnolly San Francisco Supervisor Mark Farrell President of Transit District H.E. Christian Peeples PTA Boardmember Cynthia Wiggin Vice Mayor Chin Ho Liao, San Gabriel Vice Mayor Eduardo Martinez, Richmond Vice Mayor Greg Scharff, Palo Alto Vice Mayor James Campbell, Belvedere Vice Mayor Jim Craser, Tiburon Vice Mayor Cecilia Valdez, San Pablo Vice Mayor Charles Stone, Belmont Vice Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Cupertino Law enforcement Sheriff Vicki Hennessy, San Francisco Police Chief Tricia Seyler, Belvedere District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, Alameda District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Santa Clara District Attorney George Gascon, San Francisco District Attorney Joyce Dudley, Santa Barbara District Attorney Edward Berberian, County of Marin City Attorney Mike Feuer, Los Angeles Police Commission President Suzy Loftus, San Francisco Retired Police Chief Ken James, Emeryville Police Chief Tricia Seyler, Belvedere Police Commissioner Sonia Melara, San Francisco Municipalities City of Berkeley City of Los Angeles City of San Francisco City of Oakland City of West Hollywood City of East Palo Alto City of Cupertino City of Tiburon City of Petaluma City of Belvedere

Organizations

Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence All Saints Pasadena Gun Violence Prevention Task Force Americans Against Gun Violence American Academy of Pediatrics, California Amnesty International California Academy of Preventive Medicine California American College of Emergency Physicians California American College of Physicians California Academy of Physicians California Academy of Physician Assistants California Council of Churches IMPACT California Environmental Justice Alliance Action CaliforniaHealth California League of Women Voters California Medical Association Cleveland School Remembers Committee of Interns and Residents, SEIU Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice Coalition Against Gun Violence, Santa Barbara Courage Campaign Equality California Emergency Response Doctors Mill Valley Seniors for Peace Orange County Citizens for the Prevention of Gun Violence Pride Fund to End Gun Violence Rabbis Against Gun Violence Sacramento Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility Safe Cities Coalition, A Community Alliance to Prevent Gun Violence Southern California Public Health Association States United to Prevent Gun Violence Stop Our Shootings Stop Handgun Violence Women Against Gun Violence Youth Alive! AltaMed Action Fund State PAC

Unions

• SEIU
• California Federation of Teachers
• California Nurses Association
• California Faculty Association

Individuals

• Sean Parker, founder of Napster and former president of Facebook
• Barbra Streisand, musician

Arguments

Supporters made the following arguments in support of Proposition 63:

• The proposition would keep guns and ammunition out of the wrong hands by closing loopholes in existing law.
• The proposition would protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own guns for self-defense, hunting, and recreation.
• The proposition would address the issue of illegally armed felons.

Official arguments

Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), and Robyn Thomas, executive director of the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, wrote the official argument in support of Proposition 63 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:

Police in Dallas doing their job..., A nightclub in Orlando.... An office holiday party in San Bernardino.... A church in Charleston.... A movie theater in Aurora.... An elementary school in Newtown.... What's next? how may more people need to die from gun violence before we take bold action to save lives? More than 300 Americans are shot each day, more than 80 of them fatally. More than I million Americans were killed or seriously injured by guns from 2004-2014. ENOUGH! It's time to take action to keep guns and ammo out of the wrong hands. Proposition 63 - the Safety for All Act - will save lives by closing loopholes to prevent dangerous criminals, domestic abusers, and the dangerously mentally ill from obtaining and using deadly weapons. PROPOSITION 63 WILL: Remove illegal guns from our communities by ensuring that dangerous criminals and domestic abusers sell or transfer their firearms after they're convicted. Require any business that sells ammunition to report if their ammunition is lost or stolen. Require people to notify law enforcement if their,guns are lost or stolen, before the weapons end up in the wrong hands. Ensure people convicted of gun theft are ineligible to own guns. Strengthen our background check systems and ensure that California law enforcement shares data about dangerous people with the FBI. Proposition 63 keeps guns and ammo out of the wrong hands, while protecting the rights of law-abiding Californians to own guns for self-defense, hunting, and recreation. Right now, thousands of dangerous felons remain illegally armed because we don't ensure that people convicted of violent crimes actually relinquish their guns after conviction. The Department of Justice identified more than 17,000 felons and other dangerous people with more than 34,000 guns, including more than 1,400 assault weapons. Passing Proposition 63 will represent a historic and unprecedented step forward for gun safety. ... To learn more please visit www.SafetyforAll.com

Opposition

The campaign in opposition to Proposition 63 was led by Stop Prop 63 and The Coalition for Civil Liberties.

Opponents

Federal and state officials

• U.S. Rep. Tom McClintock (R-4)
• U.S. Rep. Paul Cook (R-8)
• Sen. Ted Gaines (R-1)
• Sen. Mike Morrell (R-23)
• Sen. Jim Nielsen (R-4)
• Sen. Jeff Stone (R-28)
• Asm. Brian Dahle (R-1)
• Asm. Brian Jones (R-71)
• Asm. Shannon Grove (R-34)
• Asm. Jim Gallagher (R-3)
• Asm. Tom Lackey (R-36)
• Asm. Devon Mathis (R-26)
• Asm. Melissa Melendez (R-67)
• Asm. Jay Obernolte (R-33)
• Asm. Jim Patterson (R-23)
• Asm. Marc Steinorth (R-40)
• Asm. Marie Waldron (R-75)

Local officials

County Supervisor Shawn Nelson, Orange County County Supervisor Chuck Washington, Riverside County County Supervisor Curt Hagman, San Bernardino County County Supervisor Josie Gonzalez, San Bernardino County County Supervisor Robert Lovingood, San Bernardino County Mayor Barb Stanton, Apple Valley Mayor Rhodes Rigsby, Loma Linda Mayor Pro Tem Phil Dupe, Loma Linda Mayor Scott Mann, Menifee Mayor Art Welch, Banning Mayor Pro-Tem Greg Bogh, Yucaipa Councilman Paul Barich, Redlands Councilman John James, Redlands Sheriff Kory Honea, Butte County Sheriff Tom Bosenko, Shasta County Sheriff Mike Poindexter, Modoc County Sheriff John McMahon, San Bernardino County Sheriff Jon E. Lopey, Siskiyou County Sheriff Stan Sniff, Riverside County Sheriff Margaret Mims, Fresno County Sheriff Rich Warren, Glenn County Sheriff Donny Youngblood, Kern County Sheriff Jay Varney, Madera County Sheriff Mike Boudreaux, Tulare County Police Chief Jerry Dyer, Fresno Police Chief Neild Dadian, Kingsburg Police Chief Rudy Escalante, Capitola Police Chief Joe Garza, Reedley

Parties

• California Republican Party
• Libertarian Party of California
• California Peace and Freedom Party

Organizations

Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County CalGuns Shooting Sports Association California Police Chiefs Association California State Sheriff’s Association California Correctional Peace Officers Association California Fish & Game Warden’s Association California Reserve Peace Officers Association California Rifle and Pistol Association California Waterfowl Congress of Racial Equality Ducks Unlimited FFLGuard Gun Owners of California Jews Can Shoot Law Enforcement Action Network Law Enforcement Alliance of America Liberal Gun Club National Rifle Association National Wild Turkey Federation NRA Members’ Council Peace Officers Research Association of California Pink Pistols San Francisco Veteran Police Officers Association Women Against Gun Control

Individuals

• Kim Rhode, six-time Olympic shooting medalist
• Chris Cheng, professional marksman
• Steven Seagal, actor
• Steve Cooley, retired Los Angeles County District Attorney
• Kevin Drum, political blogger for Mother Jones

Arguments

A Coalition for Civil Liberties advertisement, titled "Take Away Our Rights, Take Away Our Life"

Opponents made the following arguments in opposition to Proposition 63:

• The proposition would burden law-abiding citizens who own firearms.
• The proposition would not keep terrorists and violent criminals from accessing firearms and ammunition.
• The proposition would divert resources away from local law enforcement and burden an already overburdened court system.
• The proposition would make Californians less safe and would waste public resources and money.
• The proposition would be difficult for the legislature to amend.

Official arguments

Donny Youngblood, president of California State Sheriffs’ Association, Kevin Bernzott, CEO of the California Reserve Peace Officers Association, and Tiffany Cheuvront, principal officer of the Coalition for Civil Liberties, wrote the official argument in opposition to Proposition 63 found in the state's voters guide. Their argument was as follows:

Prop 63 is overwhelmingly opposed by the law enforcement community and civil rights groups because it will burden law abiding citizens without keeping violent criminals and terrorists from accessing firearms and ammunition. The California State Sheriffs' Association, Association of Deputy District Attorneys for Los Angeles County, California Correctional Peace Officers Association, California Fish & Game Wardens' Association, California Reserve Peace Officers Association, and numerous other law enforcement and civic groups, representing tens of thousands of public safety professionals throughout California, are united in their opposition to this ineffective, burdensome, and costly proposal. Prop 63 would divert scarce law enforcement resources away from local law enforcement and overburden an already overcrowded court system with the enforcement of flawed laws that will turn harmless, law-abiding citizens into criminals. In fact, New York recently abandoned its enforcement of a similar proposal after it was passed, finding that it was impossible to implement and effectively maintain. Doing what actually works to keep the public safe is the highest priority of law enforcement professionals who dedicate their lives to 'protecting Californians. Unfortunately, Prop 63 will not make anyone safer. To the contrary, by directing resources away from measures that are truly effective at preventing the criminal element from acquiring guns and ammunition, it would make us all less safe. The immense public resources that Prop 63 would waste should be used to hire more officers and to target, investigate, and prosecute dangerous individuals and terrorists. After closely analyzing the language of Prop 63, the law enforcement community found many problems in the details, Due to strict limitations on the legislature's ability to amend voter-enacted propositions, most of these problems will be difficult or impossible for the legislature to fix if Prop 63 passes, saddling California with the burdens and costs of this flawed proposal forever. By going around the legislature, this initiative limits public safety professionals in developing future legislation that would truly promote public safety. California taxpayers should not waste hundreds of millions of their dollars on ineffective laws that have no value to law enforcement and will harm public safety by diverting resources away from effective law enforcement activities that are critical to public safety. Please visit WWW.WHERESMYAMMO.COM for more information. PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROP 63.

Campaign advertisements

The following video advertisements were produced by the Coalition for Civil Liberties:

An opposition ad featuring six-time Olympic medalist Kim Rhode

Coalition for Civil Liberties' "Tiffany Cheuvront" ad

Coalition for Civil Liberties' "Chris Cheng" ad

Campaign finance

The campaign finance information on this page reflects the most recent scheduled reports that Ballotpedia has processed, which covered through December 31, 2016.

See also: Campaign finance requirements for California ballot measures

One committee registered in support of the measure—Safety for All, Yes on Prop. 63, Newsom Ballot Measure Committee. It reported over $4.5 million in contributions. Three committees registered in opposition to the measure. Together they reported over $1 million in contributions.

	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Support	$3,343,716.54	$1,216,767.54	$4,560,484.08	$3,322,752.63	$4,539,520.17
Oppose	$948,745.18	$111,278.53	$1,060,023.71	$945,846.31	$1,057,124.84
Total	$4,292,461.72	$1,328,046.07	$5,620,507.79	$4,268,598.94	$5,596,645.01

Support

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committee in support of the ballot measure.

Committees in support of Proposition 63
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Safety for All, Yes on Prop. 63, Newsom Ballot Measure Committee	$3,343,716.54	$1,216,767.54	$4,560,484.08	$3,322,752.63	$4,539,520.17
Total	$3,343,716.54	$1,216,767.54	$4,560,484.08	$3,322,752.63	$4,539,520.17

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committee registered in support of the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
California Democratic Party	$0.00	$1,150,949.00	$1,150,949.00
Newsom for California Lieutenant Governor 2014	$727,564.00	$0.00	$727,564.00
Sean Parker	$400,000.00	$0.00	$400,000.00
George Marcus	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00
Nicholas Pritzker	$250,000.00	$0.00	$250,000.00

Opposition

The following table includes contribution and expenditure totals for the committees in opposition to the ballot measure.

Committees in opposition to Proposition 63
Committee	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions	Cash Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63	$568,396.53	$57,905.75	$626,302.28	$561,590.86	$619,496.61
Stop Prop 63	$289,121.80	$52,572.78	$341,694.58	$293,028.60	$345,601.38
Veto Gunmageddon, Citizens Who Are Opposed to Proposition 63	$91,226.85	$800.00	$92,026.85	$91,226.85	$92,026.85
Total	$948,745.18	$111,278.53	$1,060,023.71	$945,846.31	$1,057,124.84

Donors

The following table shows the top donors to the committees registered in opposition to the ballot measure.

Donor	Cash Contributions	In-Kind Contributions	Total Contributions
National Rifle Association of America	$95,000.00	$0.00	$95,000.00
California Rifle & Pistol Association	$45,000.00	$0.00	$45,000.00
Gun Owners of California, Inc.	$45,000.00	$0.00	$45,000.00
Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms	$0.00	$42,561.75	$42,561.75
California Waterfowl Association	$25,000.00	$0.00	$25,000.00

Methodology

To read Ballotpedia's methodology for covering ballot measure campaign finance information, click here.

Media editorials

Support

• The Desert Sun: "Despite what the gun rights lobby might say, Proposition 63’s limits are reasonable as well as sensible and practical. Though these measures will not stop the next determined lawbreaker’s shooting spree, limiting easy access to bullets and boosting efforts to take guns from those who shouldn’t have them should help reduce the 33,000 gun deaths seen across America each year."
• East Bay Express: "It makes gun theft a felony, and it also requires that, if a weapon is lost or stolen, it must be reported. California is one of the states with the toughest gun regulations, and Prop. 63 will tighten up loopholes and infrequently enforced rules."
• Los Angeles Times: "Now, with Proposition 63, voters have the opportunity to impose additional restrictions. Despite a few niggling concerns, we encourage a yes vote on Proposition 63 to send a loud and clear message to the pro-gun lobby that California voters want more, not fewer, limits on access to firearms."
• The Sacramento Bee: "Proposition 63 would fix a major flaw in Proposition 47, an initiative approved two years ago, by specifically stating that theft of a firearm is a felony. This dangerous loophole allows criminals who steal guns worth less than $950 to get away with only a misdemeanor charge."
• San Diego City Beat: “This is common sense. Everybody should undergo a background check before buying ammunition, and those purchases should be tracked by the Department of Justice. Nobody should be sold large-capacity ammunition magazines. And anyone who steals a gun shouldn’t be allowed to have one. While this could be costly, it’s money well spent.”
• San Diego Free Press and OB Rag endorsed Proposition 63 and cited Doug Porter, who said, "This is all good stuff..."
• The San Diego Union-Tribune: "This editorial board thinks these are reasonable provisions that don’t infringe on Second Amendment rights and have the potential to reduce gun violence and mass shootings. Yes on Proposition 63."
• San Francisco Chronicle: "The gun-rights lobby has been trying to alarm law-abiding owners with horror stories about how Prop. 63 would criminalize bullet sharing among hunters and other shooting partners. Not true. The initiative is clear that it is illegal only if the individual sharing bullets does so with someone 'he or she knows or using reasonable care should know' is banned from possessing ammunition. The restrictions in Prop. 63 are sensible, practical, respectful of the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Californians, and in the interest of public safety."
• San Francisco Examiner: "Any measure that increases gun safety and could possibly block someone who shouldn’t have a loaded gun from obtaining one is a worthwhile effort, no matter the inconvenience."

Opposition

• The Bakersfield Californian: "There is such a thing as 'piling on.' You see this often when public outrage collides with politicians yearning to grandstand. This is what is happening with Proposition 63, a November ballot measure that proposes to lock a package of far-reaching gun control laws into the state’s constitution. ... To a large extent, Prop. 63 only duplicates these new gun control laws. You would think the recent legislative actions should be good enough for Prop. 63 proponents. Nope. Proponents want these laws placed in the state constitution, where changes then would require a vote of the people. And some politically ambitious proponents also want personal public credit for California having the nation’s toughest gun control laws."
• The Fresno Bee: "It largely duplicates several of the laws passed by the governor and the Legislature. If approved, Proposition 63 would become part of the state Constitution, thus requiring future voter approval to tweak or eliminate gun control provisions resulting in unintended consequences."
• Orange County Register: "We support many of the components of Proposition 63. But they need to be — and many were — argued out in Sacramento by our elected representatives. That is how the process is intended to work. This is an effort by Lt. Gov. Newsom to burnish his state reputation in advance of his run for governor in 2018."
• The Record: “Vote no. Many parts of this ballot measure are positive, but this is a case of lawmaking through the ballot box. The Legislature needs to do the heavy lifting on gun control.”
• San Mateo Daily Journal recommended a "No" vote on Proposition 63.

Other opinions

• The Mercury News argued that gun control measures passed by the legislature would be better than a gun control ballot initiative. The editorial board wrote: "It's far better for the Legislature to pass measures like this than take chances on a gun control initiative. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon hopes that these laws will persuade Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom to yank his gun control initiative from the ballot this fall. But Newsom, who is running for governor, seems more interested in grandstanding on a hot-button issue in California than enacting good legislation. He counters that his proposition is 'more comprehensive, more powerful and more permanent than anything the Legislature is considering and can legally accomplish.' 'More permanent' is precisely the problem. An initiative can't be changed to correct problems without going back to voters. It should be a last resort when lawmakers refuse to deal with an important issue. This Legislature is stepping up."

Polls

See also: 2016 ballot measure polls

• In mid August 2016, California Counts found a large majority of respondents in support of Proposition 63. The firm found 93 percent of Democrats, 62 percent of independents, and 60 percent of Republicans in support of the measure.
• A USC Dornsife and Los Angeles Times joint poll found support for Proposition 63 to be around 64 percent in early September 2016.
• A Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 483 voters and found support for Proposition 63 at 60 percent. There was a 20-point gap between the genders in terms of support, with 70 percent of women and 50 percent of men favoring the initiative.
• SurveyUSA asked 712 Californians about Proposition 63 in September 2016. About 63 percent of respondents supported the measure. Only 42 percent of gun-owners support it, while 72 percent of non-owners did.
• In mid October 2016, CALSPEAKS surveyed 622 likely voters on Proposition 63. Support among respondents was 72 percent.
• SuveyUSA found 63 percent of respondents supporting the initiative in mid October 2016.
• In late October 2016, USC Dornsife and Los Angeles Times surveyed 1,500 registered voters on Proposition 63 and found support at 58 percent and opposition at 35 percent.
• The Field Poll/IGS Poll surveyed 1,498 likely voters between October 25 and October 31, 2016, and found support for the measure at 59 percent.

Polls with margins of error

California Proposition 63 (2016)
Poll	Yes	No	Undecided	Margin of error	Sample size
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 10/22/2016 - 10/30/2016	58.0%	35.0%	7.0%	+/-2.3	1,500
SurveyUSA 10/13/2016 - 10/15/2016	63.0%	27.0%	10.0%	+/-3.6	725
CALSPEAKS 10/7/2016 - 10/13/2016	72.0%	20.0%	8.0%	+/-7.0	622
SurveyUSA 9/8/2016 - 9/11/2016	63.0%	29.0%	9.0%	+/-3.6	712
USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times 9/1/2016 - 9/8/2016	64.0%	28.0%	8.0%	+/-2.0	1,879
California Counts 8/15/2016 - 8/25/2016	77.0%	22.0%	2.0%	+/-4.0	915
AVERAGES	66.17%	26.83%	7.33%	+/-3.75	1,058.83
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Polls without margins of error

Note: The Field Poll/IGS Poll does not report a margin of error because "[polls] conducted online using an opt-in panel do not easily lend themselves to the calculation of sampling error estimates as are traditionally reported for random sample telephone surveys."

California Proposition 63 (2016)
Poll	Yes	No	Undecided	Sample size
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 10/25/2016 - 10/31/2016	59.0%	38.0%	3.0%	1,498
The Field Poll/IGS Poll 9/7/2016 - 9/13/2016	60.0%	30.0%	10.0%	483
AVERAGES	59.5%	34%	6.5%	990.5
Note: The polls above may not reflect all polls that have been conducted in this race. Those displayed are a random sampling chosen by Ballotpedia staff. If you would like to nominate another poll for inclusion in the table, send an email to editor@ballotpedia.org.

Background

Voting on Firearms
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot

California Proposition 15

See also: California Proposition 15, Handgun Registration Initiative (1982)

In 1982, California voters were first presented with a firearms-related measure: Proposition 15, which would have required handgun owners to register their guns with the Department of Justice on or before November 2, 1983, and restricted the number of California handguns in certain ways. The National Rifle Association spent $5 million opposing Proposition 15. It was defeated, with more than 60 percent of voters casting a "no" vote. As of 2016, Proposition 63 was the only other firearms-related ballot measure presented to voters in California history.

Legislation

In July 2016, California enacted legislation to regulate the sale of ammunition. The legislation required individuals and businesses to obtain a one-year license from the California Department of Justice to sell ammunition. Hunters selling 50 rounds or less of ammunition per month for hunting trips were not required to obtain a license. The legislation also required sellers to conduct background checks of purchasers with the Department of Justice. People with permits to carry concealed weapons were exempt from background checks. Starting in July 2019, Californians would be prohibited from bringing ammunition purchased in another state into California without first having it delivered to a licensed dealer.

Other 2016 firearms measures

Three other firearms-related ballot measures were voted on in the United States in 2016: Question 3 in Maine, Question 1 in Nevada, and Initiative 1491 in Washington. Proposition 63 was the only 2016 measure, and the only measure in California's history, to address the purchase of large-capacity ammunition magazines rather than the actual firearm itself.

Path to the ballot

See also: California signature requirements

• Gavin Newsom, Thomas A. Willis, and Margaret R. Prinzing submitted a letter requesting a title and summary on December 4, 2015.
• A title and summary were issued by the California attorney general's office on December 31, 2015.
• 365,880 valid signatures were required for qualification purposes.
• On February 11, 2016, petitioners reached the 25 percent mark in their signature gathering effort, collecting more than 91,470 signatures.
• On April 29, 2016, Lieutenant Governor Gavin Newsom and petitioners submitted 600,000 signatures for verification.
• Supporters had until June 28, 2016, to collect the required signatures.
• On June 23, 2016, the initiative was certified for the ballot. The secretary of state concluded that about 400,000 of the more than 600,000 signatures submitted were valid.
• Proposition 63 was assigned its official title, Proposition 63, on July 2, 2016.

Cost of signature collection:
Sponsors of the measure hired PCI Consultants, Inc. to collect signatures for the petition to qualify this measure for the ballot. A total of $2,228,384.05 was spent to collect the 365,880 valid signatures required to put this measure before voters, resulting in a total cost per required signature (CPRS) of $6.09.

State profile

Demographic data for California
	California	U.S.
Total population:	38,993,940	316,515,021
Land area (sq mi):	155,779	3,531,905
Race and ethnicity**
White:	61.8%	73.6%
Black/African American:	5.9%	12.6%
Asian:	13.7%	5.1%
Native American:	0.7%	0.8%
Pacific Islander:	0.4%	0.2%
Two or more:	4.5%	3%
Hispanic/Latino:	38.4%	17.1%
Education
High school graduation rate:	81.8%	86.7%
College graduation rate:	31.4%	29.8%
Income
Median household income:	$61,818	$53,889
Persons below poverty level:	18.2%	11.3%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "American Community Survey" (5-year estimates 2010-2015) Click here for more information on the 2020 census and here for more on its impact on the redistricting process in California. **Note: Percentages for race and ethnicity may add up to more than 100 percent because respondents may report more than one race and the Hispanic/Latino ethnicity may be selected in conjunction with any race. Read more about race and ethnicity in the census here.

Presidential voting pattern

See also: Presidential voting trends in California

California voted for the Democratic candidate in all seven presidential elections between 2000 and 2024.

More California coverage on Ballotpedia

• Elections in California
• United States congressional delegations from California
• Public policy in California
• Endorsers in California
• California fact checks
• More...

Recent news

The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms California 2016 Proposition 63 ammunition. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.

California Proposition 63, Background Checks for Ammunition Purchases and Large-Capacity Ammunition Magazine Ban (2016) - Google News

Related measures

No measures concerning Firearms are certified for the ballot in 2016. They will be listed below if and when any are certified for the ballot.

External links

Basic information

• Petition for Initiative #15-0098 (Proposition 63)
• California 2016 Voter Guide

Support

• Yes on Prop 63
• Yes on Prop 63 Twitter
• Yes on Prop 63 Facebook

Opposition

• Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63
• Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63
• Coalition for Civil Liberties - No on 63 Twitter
• Stop Prop 63

Other resources

• Upvote California Podcasts on Ballot Measures

See also

Suggest a link

• 2016 ballot measures
• California 2016 ballot propositions
• California ballot measures

Footnotes

Ballotpedia

About

Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities

---

Executive: Leslie Graves, Founder and CEO • Gwen Beattie, Chief Operating Officer

Communications: Alison Graves, Director of Communications • Carley Allensworth • Abigail Campbell • Frank Festa • Sarah Groat • Nathaniel Harwood • Dillon Redmond • Erica Shumaker
External Relations: Geoff Pallay, Director of External Relations • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy • Ashley Fleming • Thomas Mardik • Hannah Nelson
Operations: Meghann Olshefski, Director of Operations • Amanda Herbert • Mandy Morris • Caroline Presnell • Kelly Rindfleisch
Tech: Matt Latourelle, Director of Technology Operations • Ryan Burch • Kirsten Corrao • Beth Dellea • Travis Eden • Tate Kamish • Margaret Kearney • Eric Lotto • Joseph Sanchez • Mary Susmitha

Contributors: Scott Rasmussen

---

Editorial Content

Josh Altic, Director of Content • Daniel Anderson, Associate Director of Elections & Data • Cory Eucalitto, Associate Director of Features • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor of Ballot Measures • Mandy McConnell, Managing Editor of News • Doug Kronaizl, Managing Editor of Local Expansion • Abbey Smith, Managing Editor of Elections • Janie Valentine, Managing Editor of Law • Joel Williams. Managing Editor of Events • Andrew Bahl • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Joseph Brusgard • Emma Burlingame • Kelly Coyle • Jon Dunn • Thomas Ellis • Nicole Fisher • Joseph Greaney • Thomas Grobben • Jaime Healy-Plotkin • Brianna Hosea • Molly Kehoe • Tyler King • Glorie Martinez • Norm Leahy, Senior Editor • Nathan Maxwell • Jimmy McAllister • Brandon McCauley • Ellie Mikus • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Kaley Platek • Samantha Post • Adam Powell • Annelise Reinwald • Ethan Rice • Spencer Richardson • Victoria Rose • Briana Ryan • Myj Saintyl • Maddy Salucka • Emma Soukup • Alexis Thacker • Mina Vogel • Samuel Wonacott • Trenton Woodcox