Legal CA DROS REQUIRING OCCUPATION BEFORE SUBMISSION STARTING 8/27/2026

[Dvrjon]

I'm gonna need all of you to put prostitute as your employment so I can put pimp, and let this all come to a full circle.

I can’t do that…i don’t charge; I give it away. I’ll even buy dinner and provide the room.

 

[Gawernator]

WFT, getting harder to buy a legal gun as a legal buyer than it is to get on Government Food Stamps.

To be honest not really unless you're a single mom on welfare with no job. The income limit is comically low. Even making $18 an hour at walmart you make too much money to qualify for EBT. lol.

 

[JamMan1213]

And yet another reason to want outa this state, Damn!
As if over the top taxes on top of taxes weren't bad enough. My God, what would they do if everyone just left, Tax each other?

 

[paintballdad]

Torta Pounder

So is the dwarf version called a quarter pounder?

 

[paintballdad]

Technically we can all put down gunslinger.

 

[treelogger]

Is this part of of the information that is submitted under oath, or under penalty of perjury?

 

[Hit Factor]

My God, what would they do if everyone just left, Tax each other?

They would quickly find out what they should have learned from every country on Earth that has tried socialism: Everything falls apart when you run out of other people’s money.

By the way, are the buses in New York free yet?

 

[TheRatDragon]

I just started a job being behind the counter in an FFL so this is just another thing to worry about. Great.

Why does the CADOJ need this information? What does this have to do with our 2nd Amendment rights? Why do we keep letting them do this?

 

[Enthused]

OCCUPATION: Hunter Biden's drug dealer.

 

[probaholic1]

Male stripper

 

[Churro]

E-Girl

 

[iloveredmeat]

Is this part of of the information that is submitted under oath, or under penalty of perjury?

Yes, everything on the 4473 needs to be true:

Certification: You sign and date the form under penalty of law, certifying that all of your answers are true and correct. [1]

Intentional Lies: Making a false statement or hiding material facts (such as your eligibility status or identity) violates federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)). [1]

Felony Classification: Intentionally lying on the form is a federal felony. [1]

This is actually what we were all leaning on to get Hunter prosecuted for lying on the form.

Even though these posts are hilarious, and the occupations listed would be a great countermovement, I'm going to be serious here... because it's actually worrying that this question is being required.

So, for me, rather than risking any exposure by putting down a funny occupation, I think we should keep the truth on our side.

Off the cuff, my thought is that we all state "Various" for occupation. I know that I have one job caring for my family, another caring for my home, another that I clock in for, another job maintaining my car, my trailer, my boat, my firearms, my pets, etc. That's a lot of occupations, so stating "Various" is both true and vague.

Doesn't give them what they're hoping for, but is "true and correct".

Anyway, that's my first thought... open to feedback.

 

[Gawernator]

Yes, everything on the 4473 needs to be true:

Certification: You sign and date the form under penalty of law, certifying that all of your answers are true and correct. [1]

Intentional Lies: Making a false statement or hiding material facts (such as your eligibility status or identity) violates federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)). [1]

Felony Classification: Intentionally lying on the form is a federal felony. [1]

This is actually what we were all leaning on to get Hunter prosecuted for lying on the form.

Even though these posts are hilarious, and the occupations listed would be a great countermovement, I'm going to be serious here... because it's actually worrying that this question is being required.

So, for me, rather than risking any exposure by putting down a funny occupation, I think we should keep the truth on our side.

Off the cuff, my thought is that we all state "Various" for occupation. I know that I have one job caring for my family, another caring for my home, another that I clock in for, another job maintaining my car, my trailer, my boat, my firearms, my pets, etc. That's a lot of occupations, so stating "Various" is both true and vague.

Doesn't give them what they're hoping for, but is "true and correct".

Anyway, that's my first thought... open to feedback.

Ok so when I write "Detective" on the form... what happens with that data

 

[Big Skrunk]

Think they'll accept "Employee"?

 

[iloveredmeat]

Ok so when I write "Detective" on the form... what happens with that data

I reckon that's the big question... and your guess is as good or better than mine. What the heck are they going to do with this info?

It might be paranoid, but will they create a list of occupations that "don't need firearms"? Similar to when you needed a "reason" to apply for a CCW?

Or is it simply to gather demographic data? But for what reason? It's so weird to me.

I don't know the process, but is there any info out there on who proposed this and why?

 

[Gawernator]

I reckon that's the big question... and your guess is as good or better than mine. What the heck are they going to do with this info?

It might be paranoid, but will they create a list of occupations that "don't need firearms"? Similar to when you needed a "reason" to apply for a CCW?

Or is it simply to gather demographic data? But for what reason? It's so weird to me.

I don't know the process, but is there any info out there on who proposed this and why?

"
This looks much less like a new gun-control law taking effect tomorrow and much more like California DOJ finally making its DROS software enforce a requirement that has been sitting in California law for decades.


Current Penal Code § 28160(a) specifies everything that must be included in the DROS record. Paragraph (26) expressly says:

“Purchaser’s occupation.”

That is not new for 2026.


In fact, this goes way back. A California DROS form reproduced in the 1982 statutes literally had fields for:


“Date of birth … Height … Occupation … Color, skin, eyes, hair.”


So California was collecting occupation on handgun DROS records at least 44 years ago. The statutory version of former Penal Code § 12077 was still expressly requiring “purchaser’s occupation” in 1997 and 1999. When the firearms statutes were reorganized, that requirement became current § 28160.


What seems to be happening on August 27, 2026 is therefore:


The DES software previously apparently allowed the dealer to submit a DROS without filling in the occupation field, even though § 28160 technically said the record was supposed to contain it. DOJ is now changing the field validation so the dealer cannot submit until something is entered. The current DES login page confirms DOJ has recently made updates to the system, although its public-facing page doesn't explain this particular change. Dealers and users are reporting the August 27 occupation requirement tonight.


So I would characterize this as:


Old statutory requirement + new software enforcement = suddenly everybody notices it.


I cannot find a new 2026 bill saying, “Beginning August 27, gun buyers must disclose their occupation.” That's an important distinction.


As for why California wants it, historically it appears to have been treated as an identifying descriptor. Look at that old form: occupation was grouped with height, DOB, skin, eyes, and hair. It predates the modern computerized background-check regime. California then simply kept carrying that data element forward as DROS evolved into a firearm-registration/database system. There's no indication in § 28160 that your occupation itself determines eligibility to possess a firearm.


And I would not recommend putting “Nunya,” “professional nipple inspector,” etc., despite the Reddit jokes. Penal Code § 28250 makes knowingly furnishing incorrect information or knowingly omitting required information on a DROS a misdemeanor. That's a stupid way to create a firearms-related criminal issue over a field that can presumably be answered with something mundane like “retired,” “unemployed,” “self-employed,” “engineer,” “investigator,” etc.


The part I find genuinely strange is the timing. Why DOJ suddenly decided in late August 2026 to enforce a field California has had on DROS paperwork since at least 1982 is not explained in any official DOJ material I can find. It may simply be an audit/compliance correction associated with the latest DES revisions rather than some new substantive policy."

 

[SlowMoe]

Yes, everything on the 4473 needs to be true:

Certification: You sign and date the form under penalty of law, certifying that all of your answers are true and correct. [1]

Intentional Lies: Making a false statement or hiding material facts (such as your eligibility status or identity) violates federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6)). [1]

Felony Classification: Intentionally lying on the form is a federal felony. [1]

This is actually what we were all leaning on to get Hunter prosecuted for lying on the form.

Even though these posts are hilarious, and the occupations listed would be a great countermovement, I'm going to be serious here... because it's actually worrying that this question is being required.

So, for me, rather than risking any exposure by putting down a funny occupation, I think we should keep the truth on our side.

Off the cuff, my thought is that we all state "Various" for occupation. I know that I have one job caring for my family, another caring for my home, another that I clock in for, another job maintaining my car, my trailer, my boat, my firearms, my pets, etc. That's a lot of occupations, so stating "Various" is both true and vague.

Doesn't give them what they're hoping for, but is "true and correct".

Anyway, that's my first thought... open to feedback.

It isn't the 4473

 

[Gawernator]

It isn't the 4473

Penal Code § 28250 makes knowingly furnishing incorrect information or knowingly omitting required information on a DROS a misdemeanor.

 

[SlowMoe]

Penal Code § 28250 makes knowingly furnishing incorrect information or knowingly omitting required information on a DROS a misdemeanor.

For ffl employee or purchaser

 

[Gawernator]

For ffl employee or purchaser

purchaser