California

Cal. Penal Code §26350 criminalizes openly carrying an unloaded handgun in most public places (loaded open carry has been separately banned since 1967). Confirmed directly from the official California Legislative Information site. AB 144 (2011), effective Jan 1, 2012.

Cal. Penal Code §26230 (SB 2, eff. 1/1/2024) makes places of worship a 'sensitive place' banned for CCW holders unless the operator posts a sign allowing it. BUT this specific provision is currently under a preliminary injunction — the Ninth Circuit (Wolford v. Lopez) affirmed the injunction as to places of worship on 9/6/2024, so as of this research the ban is NOT being enforced and litigation is ongoing. Status could change on further appeal.

SB 2 (2023) added Penal Code § 26230's list of sensitive places, which on its face includes bars, restaurants, and other establishments that serve alcohol for on-site consumption, with no restaurant carve-out. That specific provision was preliminarily enjoined in Wolford v. Lopez (C.D. Cal., Dec. 2023) as likely unconstitutional, and the injunction's status on appeal to the Ninth Circuit has continued to shift through 2024-2025. I could not confirm the current, live enforcement status with confidence — verify before relying on either a yes or a no.

A CCW license lets the holder carry statewide subject to Penal Code § 26230's 'sensitive places' list (added by SB 2, eff. 1/1/2024) — currently ~20 enforceable categories (childcare facilities, bars, etc.), with several other categories (hospitals, transit facilities, places of worship, financial institutions) enjoined pending litigation (9th Cir., mandate issued 1/23/2025) and still shifting. No boat/vessel/waterway category was found, but a CCW license itself may carry sheriff-imposed 'time, place, and manner' conditions, and the sensitive-places list is actively being litigated, so a clean statewide 'yes' overstates certainty.

Penal Code §171b bans weapons in public buildings/meetings but has historically carried a licensed-CCW exemption; separately, SB 2's 2023 'sensitive places' law (Penal Code §26230) added government buildings to the flatly-off-limits list for licensees statewide. That broader sensitive-places regime has been the subject of ongoing federal litigation (Wolford v. Lopez in the Ninth Circuit) with portions enjoined and reinstated at different points, so which rule actually controls for a given building has been unsettled and could differ by the date you check it. Treat California as genuinely conditional/in flux rather than a clean yes or no, and verify current injunction status before relying on it.

California's Gun-Free School Zone Act, Penal Code § 626.9, was extended by AB 424 (2017) to bar concealed-carry licensees from campuses of public and private colleges/universities alike; no general carve-out for CCW holders.

Genuinely unsettled right now. California's SB2 'sensitive places' law (Penal Code § 26230(a)(26)) makes private property open to the public presumptively OFF LIMITS unless the owner posts a sign affirmatively allowing guns — the opposite default from most states. The Ninth Circuit reinstated that provision as enforceable (mandate issued 1/23/2025) in May v. Bonta. On 6/25/2026 the U.S. Supreme Court decided Wolford v. Lopez, striking down Hawaii's materially identical rule as unconstitutional, and the California case was reopened 7/15/2026 — but as of early September 2026 no California court has yet issued a new order superseding the Ninth Circuit's ruling, so the statute is in immediate legal jeopardy but not formally invalidated. Practically: treat CA as still requiring affirmative posted permission until a court says otherwise.

Verified directly: Penal Code 26230(a)(26) requires signage/consent only for 'privately owned commercial establishment[s] ... open to the public.' The enumerated sensitive-places list contains no consent requirement for private property that is NOT open to the public (a residence or private land), so carry there defaults to allowed absent an objection from the owner.

California Penal Code § 171.5(b), read directly on the official Legislature site, bans possessing a firearm in 'any building, real property, or parking area under the control of an airport' — not just the post-screening 'sterile area' (that narrower definition in § 171.5(c) applies only to knives/other weapons, not firearms, per § 171.5(h)). Penal Code § 26230(a)(18) (added by 2023's SB 2) separately lists the same airport property as a 'sensitive place' where a CCW licensee may not carry. § 171.5's firearm ban predates SB 2 and is not part of the SB 2 sensitive-places litigation (Wolford v. Lopez), so it independently forecloses carry anywhere on airport property, including non-secure areas, for CCW holders and everyone else.

California requires a CCW license to carry a loaded, accessible handgun in a vehicle — a gun in the glovebox or under the seat counts as 'concealed' (Penal Code §25850/§25400). WITHOUT a license, the gun must be unloaded AND either locked in the trunk or locked in a separate container (not the glovebox) — Penal Code §25610's locked-container exception. So: yes with a valid CCW license (loaded, on person or accessible); otherwise only unloaded + locked is legal.

2023's SB2 added healthcare facilities to Penal Code §26230's 'sensitive places' where even licensees can't carry, but that specific category (along with several others, e.g. places of worship, banks, transit) is currently ENJOINED and not being enforced, per the consolidated Ninth Circuit litigation (Wolford v. Lopez / May v. Bonta; mandate issued Jan. 23, 2025). So as of this research, a CCW holder can currently carry in a CA hospital/medical office — but this is a live, actively-litigated injunction that could be narrowed or lifted on appeal (en banc rehearing has been sought). Treat as unstable.

California requires a CCW license. Penal Code §26230's 29-category sensitive-places list (schools, government buildings, hospitals, parks, etc., added by SB2 effective 1/1/2024) does not include highway rest areas, which are Caltrans-operated, not 'state parks.' Verified against the statute text directly.

No statewide statute found requiring disclosure. Reviewed CA Penal Code §§26175, 26202, 26206 (license format, disqualification, appeal procedures) directly via leginfo.legislature.ca.gov — none impose a duty to inform. However, individual issuing authorities (county sheriffs/police chiefs) may and sometimes do print a duty-to-inform condition directly on the individual license; if yours does, you must comply. Check your specific license's printed conditions.

As of January 1, 2026, AB 1078 added new subdivision (b) to Penal Code §§26150/26155, letting non-California residents apply for a CCW. It is not a simple statewide process: the applicant must apply to a specific county sheriff/police chief in a jurisdiction they genuinely intend to visit in the next 12 months, is barred from certain sub-provisions (e.g., loaded open carry in small counties), and issuance still varies heavily by county even for residents. California DOJ Information Bulletin confirms the new non-resident pathway.

Cal. Penal Code §626.9 defines a 'school zone' as school grounds plus 1,000 feet, mirroring the federal buffer. Since a 2023 law (Penal Code §626.9(c)(5), effective 2024), a CCW licensee may only carry within that 1,000-ft ring in areas that are NOT school buildings, property, parking areas, or adjacent streets/sidewalks — i.e., the license satisfies the federal exception for the outer buffer but California is stricter than federal law on anything closer to the campus itself.

Penal Code § 26230(a)(26) makes privately owned commercial establishments open to the public a default 'off-limits' location for licensed concealed carry UNLESS the operator posts a specific DOJ-format sign (min. 4x6 inches) affirmatively PERMITTING carry — the opposite default from most states, so a generic 'no firearms' sign is largely redundant with the default rule. However, this provision (enacted by SB 2, 2023) is under active Ninth Circuit litigation; in the companion case Wolford v. Lopez the Ninth Circuit found California's signage-only consent mechanism more constitutionally suspect than Hawaii's broader oral/written/signage option, and I could not confirm the current 2026 injunction status of California's private-property default specifically. Treat as contested/unsettled rather than a confirmed criminal rule.

Cal. Gov't Code § 53071 bars city/county legislative bodies from separately regulating registration/licensing of firearms, so there is no patchwork of local carry ordinances as such. BUT concealed-carry licenses are issued locally by county sheriffs/police chiefs, who retain real discretion (e.g., defining 'good moral character,' setting permit conditions/locations) — producing meaningful county-to-county variation in practice even though it isn't framed as a local 'ordinance.' Statewide 'sensitive places' restrictions were added by state law (SB 2, 2023), not by localities.

California Elections Code § 18544(a) prohibits any person in possession of a firearm from being at or near a polling place, with narrow exceptions for on-duty peace officers and specifically authorized/deputized security — not for ordinary CCW licensees.

10-round limit on manufacture/import/sale (Penal Code § 32310) and on possession (Prop. 63, effective July 1, 2017). Duncan v. Bonta: Ninth Circuit sitting en banc upheld the law 7-4 in March 2025, remanding for judgment for the state. Cert. petition has been pending at SCOTUS since Aug. 2025 with 19+ relists (not yet granted or denied as of Aug. 2026, now buoyed by a circuit split created by the Third Circuit's July 2026 ANJRPC ruling). Currently fully enforced.

Gun Violence Restraining Order, Cal. Penal Code § 18100 et seq. (2014, expanded since). Broad petitioner list: law enforcement, immediate family/household members, employers, coworkers, and teachers/school personnel may all petition.

Suppressors remain fully banned for civilian possession under Penal Code §33410 (a felony). The 2025-2026 legalization attempt (SB 649) failed to pass; the Sanchez v. Bonta Ninth Circuit challenge had oral argument Nov. 2025 but remained pending, not changing the law as of this research date. SBR/SBS and machine guns are likewise unavailable to ordinary civilians: California DOJ operates a separate 'permit to possess' scheme (e.g., Penal Code §32650 for machine guns) granted only in narrow circumstances (film/entertainment production, licensed dealers supplying government agencies) — federal NFA registration alone does not make any of these items legal to possess in California. Destructive devices are similarly restricted to a rarely-granted state permit.

No SYG statute, but case law establishes no duty to retreat anywhere lawfully present: People v. Hughes, 107 Cal. App. 2d 487 (1951); People v. Collins, 189 Cal. App. 2d 575 (1961); reflected in CALCRIM No. 505/506 jury instructions.

California requires nearly all firearm transfers, including private-party sales and gifts, to be processed through a licensed dealer (or through law enforcement) so DOJ can run a background check. Narrow exceptions exist for immediate family (parent/child/grandparent/grandchild/sibling/spouse/domestic partner) and certain short-term loans (e.g., for hunting). One of the longest-standing UBC regimes in the country (in place in some form since 1991).