One bad decision as a teenager could cost young Californians more than a decade of career opportunities under a new firearms law taking effect in January.
Assembly Bill 383, authored by Republican Assemblywoman Laurie Davies and signed into law in October, extends firearm restrictions to juveniles adjudicated for certain offenses. Under the new law, minors adjudicated for serious felonies cannot possess firearms until age 30, while those adjudicated for misdemeanor handgun or ammunition possession will face restrictions until age 25.
The bill passed the Assembly in a September vote 70-0, in a rare show of bipartisan support for a firearms bill. It was backed by law enforcement groups including the California District Attorneys Association and multiple police officers associations. It was opposed by an unusual coalition that included progressive groups such as the ACLU and the California Public Defenders Association, as well as the conservative pro-Second Amendment California Rifle and Pistol Association.
Davies declined to be interviewed or provide comment for this article.
What AB 383 does
Beyond the expanded firearm restrictions, AB 383 makes several other changes to California law.
- Subjects juveniles to the same firearm relinquishment process as adults, requiring them to surrender weapons within 48 hours if out of custody or 14 days if in custody.
- Authorizes judges to issue search warrants when minors fail to comply with relinquishment orders.
- Requires probation officers to verify compliance through the state's Automated Firearms System.
- Clarifies exceptions for lawful activities like hunting and sport shooting with parental consent.
Under current California law, adults convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors are prohibited from owning or possessing firearms. Juveniles have traditionally faced different consequences because their cases result in adjudications rather than convictions, reflecting the principle that juvenile justice prioritizes rehabilitation over punishment. AB 383 changes that by enforcing the same firearm relinquishment process for adults and juveniles, in addition to expanding the types of offenses that trigger long-term bans.
"This bill is a necessary step to close a loophole in existing law and ensure consistency in firearm restrictions for both juvenile and adult offenders," the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, which sponsored the bill, stated in legislative analysis.
Joseph Koller, an Orange County deputy district attorney, testified before the Assembly Standing Committee on Public Safety in March that the legislation addresses a critical public safety concern. “Ensuring that juveniles who have committed serious offenses are prohibited from possessing firearms until the age of 30 is a crucial measure to enhance community safety,” Koller said during the hearing.
A career barrier
Opposition centered on concerns about youth pursuing careers requiring firearms, such as law enforcement, security or the military.
“Such careers which would not be otherwise barred by a juvenile misdemeanor possession of ammunition, would be barred by AB 383,” the California Public Defenders Association stated in its opposition.
The Army confirmed these barriers are absolute during the restriction period. "Applicants who cannot legally access firearms are not eligible for Army enlistment. There are no waivers for this restriction," said Army spokesperson Lt. Col. Orlandon Howard. This means juveniles subject to AB 383 restrictions cannot enlist until those restrictions expire; age 25 for misdemeanor offenses or age 30 for felonies.
Carl Marrone is a lawyer and director of military law at National Security Law Firm, which specializes in representing service members and recruits navigating military legal issues. Marrone, who also serves in the U.S. Army Reserve JAG Corps, spoke in his capacity as a private attorney and not on behalf of the military. He said that even after restrictions expire or are successfully cleared from someone's record, adjudications can create significant obstacles for would-be recruits.
"Just because that particular recruiting station commander grants the waiver, that does not mean the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency, which is responsible for security clearances throughout the Department of Defense, is gonna say yes," Marrone said. "There's no guarantee."
He explained that recruits with juvenile adjudications must go through a suitability review and potentially apply for conduct waivers, a process that can be intimidating for a young adult without legal assistance.
Adolescent mistakes
Dan Haskins of Placer County experienced firsthand how juvenile mistakes can complicate military aspirations. His experience predates AB 383 but shows the hurdles recruits with a criminal history can face.
At 16, Haskins and a friend attempted to break into a work truck in their neighborhood. They planned to steal some tools for their minibike project, but the pair were caught and arrested before getting the door open. In the end, Haskins was found guilty of trespassing and attempted theft.
When Haskins tried to enlist at 18, he said his recruiter's tone changed after he disclosed his juvenile record. It became a paperwork headache. The ensuing waiver process required documentation, including court and school records and character references.
"One officer basically said 'we don't gamble on poor judgment,' straight to my face," Haskins said. “When you're eighteen, trying to straighten out your life, that stuff hits you like a brick to the teeth.”
Haskins eventually received his waiver and said he served six years in the Army as a mechanic.
Marrone noted that recruiting commanders face pressure to avoid approving waivers that could later prove problematic. "They're thinking, ‘if I do this kid a favor, is this going to bite me in the rear later on?’" he said. "People get relieved of command for poor judgment, and that's a real concern for them."
Rehabilitation vs restriction
Youth justice advocates argue AB 383 contradicts California’s stated commitment to treating juvenile crime differently than adult crime.
Milinda Kakani, director of youth justice at Children’s Defense Fund California, testified against the bill at the March hearing. “It's really unfortunate that AB 383 treats them as if they're adults,” she said at the time.
In an interview, Kakani said many in the youth justice system express interest in careers in law enforcement or the military. "It feels super unfortunate that there wouldn't be a more thoughtful exception for young people who are interested in a path that will actually keep their community safe," she said.
Deputy district attorney Koller stated during the March hearing that successfully rehabilitated juveniles could have their records sealed or dismissed, which he said would all but eliminate the collateral consequences of their adjudications.
However, military security clearance processes operate independently from state record sealing. The standard for obtaining a security clearance, Marrone noted, is whether it is “clearly consistent with the national interest” for someone to have access to classified information. A determination made by federal investigators separate from state rehabilitation proceedings. Having one's juvenile record cleared up is not always good enough.
"I've had plenty of clients in their late 20s, early 30s and they say, 'Yeah, I did this when I was a kid. It was literally 15 years ago. I haven't been in trouble since. I have a family now. I volunteer at my church. I'm a great member of society,'" Marrone said. "And they are. And they're motivated to serve. Who wouldn't want somebody like that in uniform?"
George Parampathu, a legislative attorney with ACLU California Action, testified at the March hearing that the bill extends restrictions beyond serious offenses. “What does AB 383 cover that existing law doesn't? It covers possession of an unloaded handgun by a minor,” Parampathu said.
He said existing law already covers serious offenses and increased punishment for misdemeanors was unnecessary. “The existing list of offenses that triggers the firearm ban until age 30 is extensive and sufficient. It covers a list of violent felonies, a list of violent misdemeanors, and a number of drug crimes.”
ACLU California Action declined multiple requests to comment for this article.
The bigger picture
AB 383 aims to address juvenile firearm offenses, but data suggests the problem may be diminishing. California Department of Justice figures show juvenile misdemeanor weapon arrests have declined significantly over the past decade, dropping from 1,324 in 2015 to 748 in 2024 — a 43% decrease.
Kakani said provisions in the bill, including more engagement on the part of probation officers, amount to increased surveillance without addressing root causes. “Research has pointed out that the more system involvement, the more system contact, the higher the risk of recidivism,” she said. “People don't need probation officers knocking on their door every other day. What they need is folks who're gonna help them get a job, finish their education, find stable housing.”
Marrone said the law raises questions about how society should treat juvenile mistakes. "There's all sorts of research about how the adolescent brain continues to develop well into their 20s, sometimes as high as 24, 25 years old," he said. "It doesn't sit well with me personally when somebody's actions as a teenager impact them the rest of their life."
Haskins agreed. “Kids are dumb. I was dumb. My friends were dumb,” he said. “A lot of us just need a shove in the right direction. The Army gave me that.”
