The California Assembly passed AB 2597 on August 10 by a 76-0 vote, adopted its urgency clause, and ordered the measure to the Senate. The bill would appropriate $7,391,650.83 from the state General Fund for claims, settlements, or judgments arising from eight named actions. Four of those actions involve firearm-rights or hunting organizations. Their listed allocations total $1,674,956.22. The vote advances the payment bill; it does not itself enact the appropriation or alter the underlying firearm laws.
AB 2597 uses California's statutory process for paying claims when an existing appropriation is insufficient. The Legislative Counsel's Digest says the attorney general reports qualifying claims, settlements, and judgments to the chair of either legislative appropriations committee, which then causes funding legislation to be introduced. Assembly Member Buffy Wicks introduced the bill on February 20. The Assembly amended it on June 30 to replace an unspecified judgment and amount with the current $7.39 million schedule covering eight actions.
Four firearm-related allocations
The first listed firearm case is Hoffman et al. v. Bonta, case No. 3:24-cv-00664-CAB-MMP in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. AB 2597 assigns $165,000 for claims, settlements, or judgments arising from that action. The bill does not identify a recipient, divide the amount among parties, or describe which component of the litigation the appropriation would satisfy. It therefore should not be read as a new ruling or as proof that every financial issue in the case has been resolved.
A second line assigns $128,206.50 to California Rifle and Pistol Association et al. v. Bonta, case No. 2:23-cv-10169-SPG-ADS in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As with the Hoffman allocation, the statutory text supplies the case, court, docket number, and amount, but no payment breakdown. For readers tracking that litigation, the concrete development is budgetary: the Assembly approved authority to fund an obligation associated with the case, subject to the rest of the legislative process.
The largest of the four firearm-related amounts tied to a single undivided case entry is $481,749.72 for Safari Club International et al. v. Bonta, case No. 2:22-cv-01395-DAD-JDP in the Eastern District of California. AB 2597 again uses the broad phrase “claims, settlements, or judgments.” It does not say in the appropriation language whether the amount represents fees, costs, damages, or another court-approved obligation. That distinction remains unavailable from the bill itself.
The fourth entry provides $900,000 for Junior Sports Magazines Inc. et al. v. Bonta, case No. 2:22-cv-04663-CAS-AYP in the Central District of California. This is the only firearm-related line with a recipient split: $350,000 would be available to the Law Offices of Donald Kilmer and $550,000 to Michel and Associates, P.C. The bill identifies the firms and amounts but does not add a narrative explanation of the underlying award. The four firearm-related allocations make up about 22.66 percent of the full appropriation.
Most of the bill covers other disputes
The remaining $5,716,694.61 is attached to four non-firearm entries. The schedule includes $2,775,000 for California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, $553,159.23 for California Chaparral Institute et al. v. Board of Forestry and Fire Protection, $887,685.38 divided between two charities for separate actions involving the attorney general and charitable-trusts registrar, and $1.5 million for The Personal Care Products Council v. Bonta. These entries matter because AB 2597 is a general claims-payment measure, not a bill written solely around firearm litigation.
The Assembly Appropriations Committee recommended passage 15-0 on August 5. The measure was read a second time and sent to third reading on August 6, followed by the 76-0 floor vote four days later. Its official status remains an active bill, and the legislative record says a two-thirds vote is required because it carries an appropriation and urgency clause. Three Assembly members were recorded as not voting on the floor motion; no member was recorded against it.
Senate action is still required
Ordering AB 2597 to the Senate is the next procedural stage, not final enactment. The official history available after the Assembly vote does not list a Senate committee assignment, hearing, or vote date. Until further action occurs, the bill provides no basis to say when any listed payment will be made. It also remains possible for the Senate process to change the text, although the present version contains exact amounts and case numbers.
If enacted in its current form, the urgency clause says the act would take effect immediately so judgment and settlement claims can be paid and hardship to claimants can end as quickly as possible. Any appropriation exceeding the amount actually required must revert to the General Fund on June 30 of the fiscal year in which final payment is made. The next record to watch is the Legislature's Senate referral or other Senate action on AB 2597, followed by any amended text or vote.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
