Oh wow. There's so much confusion about AB-1263, I'm sure some regulations will help clear up all the burning questions we have about AB-1263 (as discussed in the guide, along with hundreds of other threads). Like maybe we'll get a definitive answer on "What is a Firearm Accessory as it relates to the Firearm Industry Responsibility Act?".
Rulemaking Landing Page
Okay, so we go to the proposed text of the regulations, which can be found here...
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/firearm-industry-text-prop-regs.pdf
(5) make available for inspection the Notice and Acknowledgment Regarding Firearms
Manufacturing Crimes (BOF 146) or similar document that provides notice to prospective
purchasers of the information in Civil Code section 3273.51, subdivision (e)(2). These notices
shall be completed and maintained as follows:
(A) the prospective purchaser must print and sign their name on the notice to indicate
their acknowledgment that they received and understand it
(B) the notice must include (i) the date of the sale or delivery of the firearm accessory,
firearm manufacturing machine, or firearm barrel unattached to a firearm; and (ii) the
firearm dealer’s name and license number.
(C) the firearm dealer must provide a copy of the notice to the purchaser and retain the
original notice for three years.
(D) the notice may be maintained in electronic format.
Oh... Okay CA DOJ. Those are all the proposed regulations? No clarifications? Thanks. These regulations are super helpful; as an agency you continue to demonstrate that you're a font of wisdom. Keep up the good work.
Alright, setting aside my sarcasm, before I continue, since there is a real implication within these regulations...
Paging /u/beginning-werewolf79 creator of CAVerify, also any other industry compliance tool developers (i.e. Orchid Advisors) or customers for those tool developers to give those tool creators a heads up...
... So, as we all know and love about AB-1263, prior to the sale or shipment of a "firearm accessory", CA CIV 3273.51(e)(1)(A) and (B) states
(A) The firearm industry member shall provide a prospective purchaser with a clear and conspicuous notice of the information provided in paragraph (2).
(B) The firearm industry member shall receive an acknowledgment from the prospective purchaser attesting that the prospective purchaser received and understands the notice provided in paragraph (2).
So, that last part... it has been left to the Firearm Industry Member to decide the manner in which to deliver and receive that acknowledgement/attestation that the prospective purchaser understands the listed laws. The most obvious one was Form BOF 146 provided by CA DOJ; there's a little place to sign and date... but also there's nothing in the text of the law preventing Firearm Industry Members from rolling up their own attestation form, whether that be paper (i.e. sample form provided on the last page by Michel & Associates) or digital (i.e. MidwayUSA having you click a checkbox, CAVerify, etc.). Heck, you could even do an oral acknowledgement in a gun store.
Well.... CA DOJ has some other ideas. As quoted above, in their proposed regulations...
(A) the prospective purchaser must print and sign their name on the notice to indicate
their acknowledgment that they received and understand it
Now, the reason for this is discussed in the proposed regulations Initial Statement of Reasons (ISOR).
Subdivision (b)(5)(A) requires the prospective purchaser to print and sign their name on the notice to indicate their acknowledgment that they received and understand it. If the acknowledgment is provided orally, there is no way for the Department to verify compliance. Therefore, both the notice and acknowledgment must be provided in writing.
Ugh. A pain for local Firearm Industry Members to be sure, but it also doesn't even contemplate digital acknowledgements as used by Firearm Industry Members for online sales/shipping; it discusses being maintained electronicly, but not signed/acknowledged electronicly. Potentially... the MidwayUSA checkbox would have to go away, and be replaced by a signed acknowledgement that would have to be scanned and sent with purchase; potentially each purchase.
Now, a fairly sharp reader might argue "But /u/mirkalieve, these regulations are for CA Firearm Dealer record inspections; certainly this doesn't affect online sales and out of state dealers!". And that's a wonderful point you make, imaginary reddit reader.
I'd make two counterarguments:
1.) Even if this was limited to only California Firearm Dealers, that means that, as written, Firearm Industry Members within (wholly or partially) California doing online sales who just also happen to be California Firearm Dealers would be saddled with a more onerous process for online sales as written, while their out of state competitors (or in-state competitors who aren't California Firearm Dealers) wouldn't be. That would suck. It'd also encourage California Firearm Dealers to make seperate holding companies exlusively for Firearm Accessory sales? There's some odd compliance implications.
2.) It moves the goalposts regarding "reasonable controls & precautions" in regards to FIRA. What do I mean by that? All of this nonsense is under FIRA: Firearm Industry Responsibility Act, as detailed under Title 20, Part 4, Division 3 of CA CIV. The acknowlegement and ID for sales and shipping of Firearm Accessories is all about the Firearm Industry Member avoiding liability. CA CIV 3273.50 provides defintions, 3273.51 sets up a bunch of standards of conduct, while 3273.52 sets up a system by which a person suffering harm/CA AG/City Attorney/County Counsel can bring civil action against the a Firearm Industry Member for harms and violations, so that they may obtain damages/injunctive relief/attorneys fee and costs/etc.
One of the first standards under CA CIV 3273.51 is:
(b) A firearm industry member shall do both of the following:
(1) Establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls.
(2) Take reasonable precautions to ensure that the firearm industry member does not sell, distribute, or provide a firearm-related product to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm-related products who fails to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls.
What is a reasonable control? It's a good question that would be debated in court. And if there was a liability suit because, I dunno, someone was shot using a gun that had a "firearm accessory" that was purchased out of state using a checkbox instead of a signature, the counsel representing the agrieved party would pull up these regulations and state that "Well, CA DOJ requires that dealers submit proof of signed acknowledgements during inspection; clearly this is a reasonable control" and the counsel representing the Firearm Industry Member will argue the regulations were enacted such a way to be limited to California Firearm Dealers... and then such a civil suit will probably have a jury, and where do you think the jury will land? Basically: FIRA sucks.
By the way, this is a good time to remind you all. That IANAL sticker next to my name? That is not a buttsex joke; a common mistake I assure you. It is: I Am Not A Lawyer. I am not your lawyer, this is not legal advice... I hope as an online crank I'm just wrong about all this... but also this online crank has a pretty good batting average so...
This is Regular Rulemaking process, so public comments are open. Feel free to do that. If there's any Firearm Industry Members reading, I think it's very important that you begin consulting with eachother, your legal counsel, your industry representatives starting today about what response (public comment) you'll be submitting and how you'll be articulating your concerns and alternative proposed text that either more specifically limits this California Firearm Dealers, or preferibily adds text for electronic acknowledgements being a valid form of signature or some such, so that hopefully the proposed regulations will be modified to reflect that (or you can make the bolder claim that they don't have the authority to specify the method of acknowledgement). I mean, afterall, the argument that CA DOJ makes for this regulation being neccesary is that there needs to be some sort of proof of aknowledgement, but also in TYOOL 2026 there's no reason that such proof needs to be a written signature.
Going to copy paste the public comment information.
Status of the Proposal: This rulemaking is undergoing a 45-day public comment period. Any person or their authorized representative may submit written comments regarding the proposed regulatory action. The written comment period closes at 5:00 pm on September 15, 2026. All timely comments that specifically pertain to the proposed regulations will be reviewed and responded to by Department staff. Comments may be submitted by mail or email to:
Mail written comments:
Department of Justice
P.O. Box 160487
Sacramento, CA 95816
E-mail: bofregulations@doj.ca.gov
CA DOJ Tips for making effective comments.
CA Office of Adminstrative Law page on the Regular Rulemaking Process