The Davis Law Firm

08/24/2026

We're honored to share that The Davis Law Firm has been named a BusinessRate Top 5 2026 Award Winner for Attorneys in Mission Viejo, California! 🏆

This recognition is powered by Google Reviews, which makes it especially meaningful — it comes directly from the clients we've had the privilege to serve. Every review reflects a real person who trusted us with something important, and we don't take that lightly.

Thank you to our clients for your confidence and your kind words, and to our team for the care and dedication you bring to every case. We're proud to be part of the Mission Viejo community and look forward to continuing to serve you.

This recognition is powered by Google Reviews, which makes it especially meaningful — it comes directly from the clients we've had the privilege to serve.

08/17/2026

Federal firearm rights restoration is officially back.
On August 17, 2026, the Department of Justice finalized the new § 925(c) rule — reopening a pathway that has been closed for more than 30 years.
Key points:
• $30 application fee (can be waived)
• Electronic filing coming soon
• Ma*****na use alone does not disqualify
• Federal relief only — state prohibitions still apply
• Applications expected to open mid-to-late September 2026
If you have lost your firearm rights and want to know where you stand, now is the time to prepare.
Contact The Davis Law Firm for a confidential consultation.
CalGunLawyers.com

What DOJ's New § 925(c) Final Rule Means for You

08/05/2026

The Time Bomb in Section 30520
California’s Category 2 assault weapons list has been legally dead since January 1, 2007.
Not “effectively dead.”
Not “arguably limited.”
Dead.
The statute that authorized the Attorney General to promulgate the list (the AK and AR-15 “series” weapons now printed at 11 CCR § 5499) expired by its own terms on that date. The savings clause the Legislature wrote only preserved fi****ms “declared” by a court. No court ever declared a single one of them. Every Category 2 entry came from the Attorney General’s list — the very authority that terminated.
The list has been published without statutory power for nearly twenty years.
Category 1 (named models) and Category 3 (features) still stand. Everything that rests solely on a make and model appearing in § 5499 does not.
Full analysis linked in bio / stories.
This is legal analysis, not legal advice. Anyone with a live case or a firearm whose status turns on these questions should consult counsel.

California’s Department of Justice sorts the state’s banned assault weapons into three categories. Category 1 is the original Roberti-Roos roster — the

07/30/2026

You won your mental health hearing. You still can't buy a gun.

It happens more often than people realize.

A California superior court can lift the state fi****ms prohibition that follows a § 5150 or § 5250 hold. You petition, the DA appears, you win, the judge signs an order saying you may own and possess fi****ms.

Then you're denied at the counter.

The reason is that 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) is a separate, federal prohibition. It has no expiration date. And a state court order — however well earned — doesn't lift it unless the state has built a relief program that meets federal requirements.

More than thirty states have done that. California hasn't.

There's a second trap. The state bar generally runs five years. The federal one runs for life. Once the five years elapse, there may be nothing left to petition about in state court — while the federal prohibition stays exactly where it was.

If you've been told your rights were restored and you're still coming back denied, the problem may not be a paperwork error.

New developments under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) have reopened a path that was closed for nearly thirty years. Full breakdown at the link in bio.

Attorney advertising. This is general information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship.

****mslaw

Picture a Californian who was placed on an involuntary mental health hold years ago. He has been well ever since. He hires a lawyer, files a petition in

06/25/2026

Guns, Property, and the Spirit of Aloha: The Supreme Court Decides Wolford v. Lopez

By Jason Davis On June 25, 2026, a divided Supreme Court struck down Hawaii's so-called "vampire rule," holding 6–3 that a state may not presume gun owners are unwelcome on private property open to the public....

Explore three perspectives from SCOTUS on fi****ms and property rights in Wolford v. Lopez. Insights by Jason Davis, California attorney.

06/24/2026

Got an “Undetermined” Status on Your California Firearm Purchase? Here’s What It Means and What to Do to Fix It

This status is frustratingly common. Many people want to know two things right away: What does “Undetermined” actually mean?...

Learn what Undetermined means for your CA firearm purchase and the steps to take next. Get informed with expert legal insights.

06/23/2026

July 1, 2026 Alert: Key California Fi****ms Law Changes Every Gun Owner and Dealer Needs to Know

The Davis Law Firm | California Fi****ms Lawyer Several important changes to California fi****ms law take effect on…...

Essential insights for gun owners on new California laws from The Davis Law Firm, your trusted California fi****ms lawyer.

06/19/2026

The Gun That Wasn’t a Problem: United States v. Hemani and the Second Amendment’s Expanding Reach

June 18, 2026 Ali Hemani never pointed his gun at anyone. He never threatened anyone with it....

June 18, 2026

06/09/2026

Supreme Court denies review in the case of a third-grader who was told to remove her “Come and Take It” AR-15 hat at school.

The student wore the hat during a school Hat Day to show support for the Second Amendment. School officials made her take it off, and after going through the courts, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case today.

This raises real questions about student free speech rights when the message involves the Second Amendment — even when it’s just symbolic.

Full article with the details is on the blog. Link in the first comment.

What do you think — should schools be able to ban this kind of expression?

https://www.calgunlawyers.com/supreme-court-denies-review-in-case-of-third-grader-ordered-to-remove-come-and-take-it-ar-15-hat/

06/01/2026

Duncan v. Bonta on the Brink of Breaking Supreme Court History: 19 Relists and Counting — Why This Is Surprisingly Good News for Gun Owners

As of June 1, 2026, Duncan v. Bonta (No. 25-198) — the leading challenge to California’s ban on large-capacity magazines — has now been…...

As of June 1, 2026, Duncan v. Bonta (No. 25-198) — the leading challenge to California’s ban on large-capacity magazines — has now been distributed for