The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), backed by the legal team at Michel & Associates, is challenging Senate Bill 1384 – California’s controversial surveillance law – at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case, Richards v. Newsom, argues that forcing all Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to install 24/7 audio-visual surveillance on their private property is unconstitutional. During a detailed interview on CRPA TV, host Kevin Small and attorney Anna Barvir broke down exactly why this law has drawn so much outrage.
What SB 1384 Actually Demands from FFLs
According to Barvir, who authored the appellate brief, SB 1384 mandates round-the-clock video and audio recording of every firearm dealer’s premises – including home-based FFLs, often called “kitchen table dealers.” Every angle of every entrance, exit, firearm display area, and sales counter must be recorded continuously. And the recordings must be high-resolution enough to identify every person caught on camera. Small pointed out that these aren’t optional upgrades – this is state-forced surveillance at the expense of small businesses.
Even Home-Based Dealers Aren’t Safe
Barvir emphasized that the law doesn’t just hit large gun shops. FFLs operating out of their homes are also bound by the same rules. That means the state of California has effectively forced private homeowners to turn parts of their personal property into government-accessible surveillance hubs. Small noted how extreme this feels – not just from a privacy standpoint, but also as a direct invasion of one’s home. It’s not just about security – it’s about government control.
Violating the Fourth Amendment: Continuous Search
One of the central arguments made in the Ninth Circuit brief, according to Barvir, is that SB 1384 violates the Fourth Amendment. Normally, the government needs a warrant to search your property. But under this law, the government gets access to constant, warrantless surveillance footage, created at their own demand. Barvir explained that the search happens not when the footage is handed over, but when it’s being recorded, because the state required it. Small called this “Orwellian,” and it’s hard to disagree.
First Amendment: When Surveillance Silences Speech
Barvir also explained how SB 1384 chills free speech. Gun stores aren’t just places of commerce – they’re community spaces where political conversations, advocacy planning, and Second Amendment organizing often take place. With a sign on the wall warning customers that the government may be listening and watching, would-be speakers may hold back. That fear, she said, is enough to count as a First Amendment violation. Small added that with California’s long history of targeting the firearms community, those fears are more than justified.
Fifth Amendment: Uncompensated Government Taking
Another key argument in Richards v. Newsom is that SB 1384 violates the Fifth Amendment by forcing FFLs to bear the financial burden of installing and maintaining surveillance systems. Barvir said these systems can cost anywhere from $5,000 to $50,000 – an enormous hit for small businesses. And while the state benefits from this surveillance, it offers no financial help. That, she said, is a classic example of an uncompensated “taking” under the Fifth Amendment.
No Real Option for Damages, Even if the Law Is Struck Down
Unfortunately, Barvir explained that even if the court agrees that the law is unconstitutional, the state likely won’t owe affected FFLs any compensation. That’s because federal law generally protects state governments from having to pay damages in civil rights cases – unless they’ve explicitly waived immunity, which is extremely rare. Barvir said only in some limited cases might individual state officials be held personally liable, but the bar for that is extremely high.
Legal Timeline: A Long Fight Ahead
The case won’t be resolved overnight. The state just received a 30-day extension to file their opening brief, which pushes the next step in the case to mid-July. After that, Barvir’s team will file a response, and then the Ninth Circuit will schedule oral arguments. According to Barvir, it could be 9 months to a year before the court issues a ruling. Small reminded viewers that this lawsuit is part of a broader legal fight over gun rights in California – and it could intersect with major cases like Duncan v. Bonta already headed toward the Supreme Court.
No Second Amendment Claim – And That’s on Purpose
Interestingly, this case does not include a Second Amendment claim. Barvir said this was a deliberate choice, since the violations in question are clearly rooted in the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. She emphasized that gun stores are still protected by constitutional rights even outside of the Second Amendment, and focusing on those other rights might actually strengthen the case on appeal. It’s a reminder that constitutional protections don’t exist in silos – they overlap in powerful ways.
Why This Lawsuit Should Matter to Everyone
This case may seem like it only affects gun stores, but it’s really about the limits of state power. If the government can force private citizens to install surveillance equipment in their homes or businesses, what can’t it demand next? This isn’t just a “gun issue.” It’s a civil liberties issue that cuts across political lines. Even if someone doesn’t own a firearm or run a gun store, they should be deeply uncomfortable with a law that turns private property into a government-controlled surveillance site.
Surveillance Laws Like These Set a Dangerous Precedent
It’s also telling that the state insists on exclusive access to the surveillance footage. FFLs can’t even use it to help themselves – say, to provide evidence to an insurance company after a break-in. The law seems purpose-built not for security, but for control. As Small observed during the interview, California legislators have a pattern of singling out the firearms community. This law feels like part of that pattern – another effort to wear down gun owners through endless regulation and intrusion.
A Message from CRPA: Stay Engaged and Informed
Kevin Small closed the segment by urging supporters to follow the case closely, share updates, and support the legal efforts being led by CRPA and Michel & Associates. These lawsuits are slow, expensive, and complicated – but they’re essential. Barvir thanked viewers for their support and stressed that public engagement can make a real difference, especially in California’s high-stakes legal climate. “This is not just about today,” Small said. “It’s about setting a limit before it’s too late.”
Richards v. Newsom may start with a fight over cameras, but it could end up drawing a line in the sand over how far states can go when targeting law-abiding businesses. With SB 1384, California may have pushed too far – and thanks to the efforts of CRPA, Michel & Associates, and attorney Anna Barvir, the Ninth Circuit now has a chance to say so.
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.