The California gun tax lawsuit challenging the state’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition is pending in Sacramento County Superior Court, with both sides having filed motions for summary judgment and no final ruling yet entered. No preliminary injunction has been granted, so the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) continues collecting the tax from retailers while the court weighs the constitutional questions.
Who Sued and Where
The case is Poway Weapons & Gear, Inc. v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, also tracked under the name Jaymes v. Maduros, Case No. 25CV018964, filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. The named plaintiffs are Poway Weapons & Gear, Inc. and SGR Ventures LLC, doing business as Sacramento Gun Range. Both are retail firearms businesses directly subject to the 11% tax. The California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Foundation are supporting the challenge as organizational partners.
The defendants are the CDTFA and its director, Trista Gonzales, sued in her official capacity. Because the suit targets the state’s tax-collection apparatus rather than its criminal enforcement arm, the Attorney General’s office is not the lead defendant, though Attorney General Rob Bonta continues to defend California’s broader firearms regulatory framework in related litigation.1State of California – Department of Justice – Office of the Attorney General. Defending California’s Commonsense Firearms Laws
What the Tax Does, in One Paragraph
Assembly Bill 28, the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Act, took effect July 1, 2024. It requires licensed firearms dealers, firearms manufacturers, and ammunition vendors to pay the state 11% of gross receipts on every retail sale of a firearm, firearm precursor part, or ammunition made in California.2California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. California Firearm Excise Tax Law Retailers may pass the cost through to customers at the point of sale.3California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. Tax Guide for Sellers of Firearm and Ammunition Products Revenue is deposited into the Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Fund, with the first $75 million each year dedicated to the California Violence Intervention and Prevention Grant Program and the next $50 million to the State Department of Education for school-based gun violence prevention.4California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. California Firearm Excise Tax Law – Section 36005
The Constitutional Arguments Driving the Challenge
The plaintiffs’ core position is that the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and a tax that singles out that right for a unique financial burden amounts to an unconstitutional restriction. Two legal pillars hold the argument up.
The Bruen Historical-Tradition Test
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court held that when the Second Amendment’s text covers an individual’s conduct, the government must show that its regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.5Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen Plaintiffs argue no founding-era tradition exists of imposing targeted excise taxes on arms as a revenue-raising tool. Without a historical analogue, they say, the tax cannot survive. The argument puts courts on unfamiliar ground. Judges have applied Bruen to physical restrictions like carry permits and magazine limits, but a pure fiscal measure is a different kind of question.
The Minneapolis Star Analogy
Plaintiffs also rely on Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue (1983), in which the Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota tax on ink and paper that applied only to newspapers. The Court held that singling out the press for a tax “without parallel in the State’s tax scheme” weakened the political checks that normally restrain legislatures from imposing crippling taxes, and that such differential treatment could operate as effectively as censorship.6Cornell Law Institute. Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue The analogy is deliberate. If the First Amendment forbids singling out the press for a special tax, the challengers argue, the Second Amendment should forbid singling out firearms.
Challengers also emphasize scale. The statute’s spending structure contemplates revenue well over $100 million annually, and plaintiffs argue a tax engineered to generate that level of funding necessarily imposes a heavy burden on constitutionally protected activity.
How California Is Defending the Tax
The state frames AB 28 as a valid revenue measure rather than a regulatory restriction on gun ownership. On that view, the Bruen historical-tradition test was designed for laws that restrict who can possess firearms or where they can carry them, not for tax policy that leaves every resident free to purchase any lawful firearm. A tax, California argues, is a cost of commerce no different from sales tax, and does not implicate the Second Amendment at all.
California also points to the earmarked spending on violence prevention, school safety, and victim services as evidence that the tax serves a compelling public interest. Whether a court will treat that spending purpose as legally relevant under Bruen’s text-and-history test, which explicitly rejected interest-balancing, is one of the central questions the litigation will resolve.
Current Status of the Case
As of late May 2026, both sides have filed motions for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in their favor without a full trial. The plaintiffs filed their motion in early April 2026, and the court issued an order on May 27, 2026 setting a briefing schedule and hearing date for both motions.
No preliminary injunction has been granted. That matters. It means the tax has remained in continuous effect since July 1, 2024, and the CDTFA keeps collecting it from retailers while the court considers the constitutional challenge. Every quarter the tax stays in force, retailers accumulate costs that may be difficult or impossible to recover even if the law is later struck down.
Whatever the Sacramento Superior Court decides, an appeal is close to certain. The case raises unresolved questions about how Bruen applies to fiscal policy, and a definitive answer will likely require California’s appellate courts, and possibly the state Supreme Court, to weigh in.
What the Tax Still Requires While the Lawsuit Is Pending
For buyers, the practical effect is unchanged. A firearm with a $500 selling price can generate roughly $56 in state excise tax on top of ordinary sales tax, dealer record-of-sale fees, and safety fees. Retailers typically pass the 11% through at checkout.
For dealers and ammunition vendors, compliance obligations continue in full. Every licensed firearms dealer, ammunition vendor, and firearms manufacturer making retail sales in California must hold a California Firearm and Ammunition Excise Tax (CFET) Certificate of Registration with the CDTFA, and must file quarterly returns electronically by the last day of the month following the end of each quarter.7California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. California Firearm and Ammunition Excise Tax Return – Filing Requirements A late return or late payment triggers a 10% penalty on the amount due plus interest, and continued noncompliance can lead to revocation of the certificate.
Two narrow exemptions remain available regardless of the lawsuit. Sales to active or retired peace officers and to any law enforcement agency employing such an officer are fully exempt, and a dealer whose retail firearm, precursor part, and ammunition receipts fall below $5,000 in a given quarter owes no tax for that quarter, though quarterly returns must still be filed.8California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. California Firearm Excise Tax Law – Section 36021
Until the court rules and any appeal is resolved, the tax is the law in California, and the compliance clock keeps running.