Self-Defense Firearms Training

This law effects ALL California CCW holders, not just OCSD.
Good evening, we are reaching out to share an important update effective January 1, 2026.

An amendment to California Penal Code § 26225(e), enacted through AB 1078, will remove the current “grace period” for CCW license renewals. Once a license has expired, there will be no opportunity to submit a renewal application. If a renewal application is not submitted before the expiration date, the individual will be required to reapply as a new applicant in accordance with Penal Code § 26225(e).

If you have any questions, please feel free to reach out

Thank you,
CCW Licensing

Send a message to learn more

I have been getting quite a few calls about this... The simple answer is, NO, you can't buy ammo from out of state! See the attached bulletin from National Shooting Sports Foundation that puts it into simple terms...

I am very proud that the Orange County Board of Supervisor, Janet Nguyen, from District One, awarded my wife Julie for A Women of Distinction 2025. This award for over 25 years of fi****ms training to female law enforcement and the general public.

For any of your CCW friends who live out of State! I'm dealing with two students already looking to do this with Orange County.

This was posted on the state website five days ago.https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2025-dle-06.pdf

The three of us had a great meeting with HBPD Chief of Police Eric Parra.

The lastest on SB-2 Before I post the results, CRPA is stating the stay is still in place. So, no changes yet.
The latest ruling in May v. Bonta is something of a split decision,
with some key victories achieved and some we still need to fight for.

Here’s where we won back your right to carry:
Hospitals
Churches
Medical facilities
Public transit
Gatherings that require a permit
Parking areas attached to these places
The “Vampire Rule”

Here’s where we came up short on today’s ruling.
Bars and restaurants serving alcohol
Playgrounds
Parks, State Parks
Casinos
Stadiums and Arenas
Libraries
Zoos
Museums
Parking area

Bars and casinos have been a non-no for years. Stadiums and Arenas have has metal detectors for years. So, no loss there.

Send a message to learn more

Fresh from CA-DOJ:
IMPORTANT NOTICE
SUBJECT: Law prohibiting the purchase of more than one firearm within any 30-day period enjoined in Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al., Case 3:20-cv-02470-WQH-MMP
This bulletin advises dealers of the effect of a court order in Nguyen, et al. v. Bonta, et al. on the California law that has generally prohibited the purchase of more than one firearm within any 30-day period. (California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f)). As described in more detail below, the court order now prevents the Department of Justice (DOJ) from enforcing that law. This bulletin also advises dealers of related changes made to the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) Entry System (DES).
Court Orders
On March 28, 2024, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California issued a permanent injunction and judgment prohibiting the California Department of Justice from enforcing California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f). The District Court’s judgment also afforded DOJ thirty (30) days to seek a stay of the injunction.
On April 24, 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals initially granted DOJ’s motion for a stay of the District Court’s judgment pending an appeal, which effectively placed a temporary hold on the effect of the injunction.
On August 15, 2024, at approximately 5:00 p.m., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed its order staying the District Court’s judgment. That action lifted the hold on the District Court’s judgment, allowing the District Court’s injunction preventing DOJ from enforcing California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f) to become effective.
As a result, and in accordance with that order, DOJ has ceased enforcing California Penal Code sections 27535 and 27540(f).
DES Modifications
Based on the orders described above, DOJ has modified the DES to allow users to place multiple fi****ms in the pending cart and submit them to DOJ in the same transaction.
Additionally, dealers are advised not to select any option in the “30-day restriction exemption” drop down field within DES, as that selection is not currently necessary in most cases.
However, the system will require a 30-day exemption reason if the customer is using a waiting period exemption. The DOJ is actively working to resolve this issue.
DOJ will immediately issue another bulletin if the guidance changes or is use.

Send a message to learn more

NRA Files Legal Challenge to California’s Excise Tax on Firearm and
Ammunition Sales

Tuesday, July 2, 2024 NRA Files Legal Challenge to California’s Excise
Tax on Firearm and Ammunition Sales
Support NRA-ILA

Today, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), together with
the Second Amendment Foundation, Fi****ms Policy Coalition, and
California Rifle & Pistol Association, filed a lawsuit challenging
California’s 11% excise tax on gross receipts from the retail sale of
fi****ms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition.

Although the tax—which is imposed by Assembly Bill 28—is technically
levied on the sellers, the amount is passed through to law-abiding
Californians every time they purchase such items.

This was demonstrated when the two individual plaintiffs, Danielle
Jaymes and Joshuah Gerken, purchased a firearm and ammunition on July
1, 2024—the date the excise tax provision took effect. The cost of
their purchases increased by 11% due to the tax.

"The National Rifle Association has a record of challenging laws that
needlessly abridge the rights of law-abiding Americans," said Randy
Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action
(NRA-ILA). "California's fi****ms excise tax is a blatant and
egregious attack on the rights of Californians and a calculated
maneuver to dismantle the Second Amendment."

The plaintiffs, including the two individuals and four organizations,
sued Nicolas Maduros in his official capacity as the Director of the
California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, alleging a
violation of their Second Amendment rights. They seek a declaratory
judgment stating that the tax is unconstitutional and a preliminary
injunction enjoining its enforcement. The case, Jaymes v. Maduros, was
filed in the Superior Court of California in the County of San Diego.

NRA-ILA | NRA Files Legal Challenge to California’s Excise Tax on Firearm and Ammunition Sales Today, the National Rifle Association of America (NRA), together with the Second Amendment Foundation, Fi****ms Policy Coalition, and California Rifle & Pistol Association, filed a lawsuit challenging California’s 11% excise tax on gross receipts from the retail sale of fi****ms, firearm precursor...

I don't like this and said so in the article

OC Supervisors Consider Gun Storage Law, Spark Constitutional Questions A newly proposed law is sparking questions on whether it's constitutional to regulate home gun storage and how exactly it would be enforced.

This seems very odd.

New Gun Control Law and 11% Tax Begin Soon—But No One's Making a Fuss New Gun Control Law and 11% Tax Begin Soon—But No One's Making a Fuss