The Creepy Nature of California's Gun Dealer Surveillance Mandate

On one hand, today is an amazing time for a science fiction nerd like me. We've got AI, flying cars, and humanoid robots, all becoming more and more common in this day and age. We've got NASA planning a moon base, and Elon is working on a Mars colony. The future is here, but it's unfortunately becoming more like 1984 and less like The Jetsons.

It's one thing to know we all carry a device that makes it easier for the government to keep an eye on what we're doing, and we've got Flock cameras all over the place, tracking our comings and goings, just waiting for someone to decide they "need" that information for whatever purpose. The state of California, however, has taken it in a new direction by mandating all gun stores have around-the-clock surveillance.

"What's the big deal? That's a security measure, right?"

Well, no, but that's not the big deal I want to talk about today. Today, we need to understand that this surveillance doesn't just apply to gun stores.

California is forcing federally licensed firearms dealers, including those operating businesses from their homes, to continuously record video and audio inside designated business areas, even when no firearms transactions are taking place. The recordings must be preserved for at least a year and made available to government authorities under the state’s inspection and access provisions.

Now, the Goldwater Institute is asking the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a ruling that allowed California’s 24-hour surveillance mandate to stand.

In an amicus brief filed October 23, 2026, Goldwater argues that the state’s recording requirement violates the First and Fourth Amendment rights of firearms dealers and threatens the privacy of customers, employees, and family members whose conversations can be captured by government-mandated microphones.

The case, Richards v. Newsom (No. 25-693), raises a constitutional question that extends beyond firearms sales: Can the government force Americans to record private conversations inside their homes simply because they operate a licensed business?

While the cameras aren't required everywhere in the home, they are required wherever you conduct business as an FFL. Unless you've got a home office where literally everything is done, you've got a problem because no common areas are going to count as the business area, and the risk of your private conversations being recorded becomes even greater.

Personally, I think every FFL should find a chance to be alone in the house and walk around naked in front of the cameras. If you have to be made uncomfortable, so should anyone who wants to view it. 

But that's just me. I'm a giver.

In all seriousness, this should be a no-brainer. It's one thing to call for surveillance at storefronts. It's still problematic, mind you, because this isn't about arresting people who break into the store or anything of the sort, but about seeing who is buying guns, but at least a storefront is a publicly accessible business where the expectation of privacy isn't quite what you expect inside your home.

Having the state mandate that you must put surveillance inside your home — surveillance that they can access on demand according to the exact same law, all without a warrant — is a different matter entirely.

My profound hope is that the judge here realizes this goes way too far and issues an immediate injunction. Ideally, for the law as a whole, but at least for home-based FFLs.

Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.

Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.