California’s controversial 11% excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and precursor parts is once again in the spotlight after a significant legal filing earlier this month moved a major lawsuit closer to a potential ruling.
The tax, created under Assembly Bill 28 (AB 28) and in effect since July 1, 2024, applies to retail sales of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition sold by licensed dealers. It was promoted by state lawmakers as a way to fund gun-violence prevention programs, but critics have argued it unfairly targets lawful gun owners and places additional financial burdens on hunters and recreational shooters.
New Legal Filing Pushes Case Forward
In early April 2026, plaintiffs in the case Poway Weapons & Gear v. California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) filed a motion for summary judgment in Sacramento Superior Court.
This filing asks the court to rule on the constitutionality of the tax without proceeding to a full trial, arguing that the legal issues are clear enough to justify an immediate decision.
The plaintiffs include firearm retailers and advocacy groups that argue the tax violates constitutional protections by imposing a special financial burden on the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Their legal argument centers on the claim that governments cannot selectively tax constitutional rights in a way that discourages lawful activity.
State officials, meanwhile, have defended the tax as a lawful excise measure similar to taxes applied to other regulated products.
What the 11% Tax Means for Hunters
For California hunters, the tax has had a direct and noticeable impact on the cost of participating in hunting activities.
The additional 11% excise tax applies to:
- Firearms used for hunting
- Ammunition purchases
- Certain firearm precursor parts
- Retail sales through licensed dealers
Hunters purchasing rifles, shotguns, or ammunition for big game, upland bird, or waterfowl seasons have seen total purchase costs rise significantly, particularly when combined with existing state sales taxes and fees.
For those who purchase ammunition regularly—especially ahead of major seasons—cost increases have been among the most widely discussed impacts since the tax took effect.
Part of a Larger Legal Fight
The April 2026 filing is part of a broader legal challenge that began shortly after the tax was enacted. Multiple lawsuits were filed in 2024 by firearm retailers, advocacy organizations, and private citizens.
These cases argue that taxing firearms and ammunition specifically—rather than applying a general tax—amounts to a targeted burden on a constitutionally protected activity.
Legal observers note that the use of summary judgment motions often signals confidence by plaintiffs that the case hinges primarily on legal interpretation rather than disputed facts.
What Happens Next
The court will now review the summary judgment request and any response from state attorneys. If the judge grants the motion, the court could issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the tax without further trial proceedings.
If the motion is denied, the case would continue through additional hearings and potentially move toward trial.
For now, the tax remains fully in effect, and firearm and ammunition purchases in California are still subject to the additional 11% excise fee.
Why Hunters Are Watching Closely
California hunters have been particularly attentive to the outcome of this case because of the cumulative costs associated with hunting in the state.
Between license fees, tag costs, equipment purchases, and ammunition expenses, even modest increases can affect participation—especially for new hunters and families introducing youth to the sport.
Retailers have also noted that increased costs can influence purchasing decisions, including the timing and volume of ammunition purchases before major hunting seasons.
With the case moving toward a potentially decisive phase, hunters, dealers, and outdoor organizations across California will be monitoring developments closely in the coming months.
A ruling in this case could determine whether California’s firearm excise tax remains a permanent feature of the state’s regulatory landscape—or faces significant legal changes ahead.
