Take a look at CA Penal Code § 468.
Its basically illegal to own anything with a infrared light source that can be attached to a regular firearm. Found this out when looking at atn scopes on amazon, ended up buying one off a forum.
Here is Cal. PC 468 in its entirety:
Any person who knowingly buys, sells, receives, disposes of, conceals, or has in his possession a sniperscope shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
As used in this section, sniperscope means any attachment, device or similar contrivance designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm which, through the use of a projected infrared light source and electronic telescope, enables the operator thereof to visually determine and locate the presence of objects during the nighttime.
This section shall not prohibit the authorized use or possession of such sniperscope by a member of the armed forces of the United States or by police officers, peace officers, or law enforcement officers authorized by the properly constituted authorities for the enforcement of law or ordinances; nor shall this section prohibit the use or possession of such sniperscope when used solely for scientific research or educational purposes.
The first paragraph says if I possess a "sniperscope," then I'm guilty of a misdemeanor and cant be punished by no more than a $1,000 fine or imprisonment up to a year, or both. The second paragraph defines "sniperscope," and there's two parts to this definition - first is that it has to be a device that is "designed for or adaptable to use on a firearm." I know some local ordnances consider air guns "firearms" for purposes of discharge prohibitions, but I'm not sure if the state defines an air gun as one. Could there conceivably be a night vision device that otherwise meets performance requirements but designed specifically for an air gun rather than a PB firearm? I guess the "adaptable to" language might doom such a device, because anything can be adaptable for use on a firearm. The next part is the requirement of projecting infrared light, and I understand this to mean active IR devices are verboten, but passive IR devices are not.
If i can get over this whole "sniperscope" nonsense by using passive IR, I still have some hurdles in the Fish and Game Code and the California Code of Regulations. First is my ability to hunt at night, and I understand it's only allowed in certain areas and depends on the species. Since I'm interested in hunting racoons, skunks, and rats at night, I'm primarily interested in "Nongame animals," the nightime restrictions for which are set forth in CCR T14-474. I'll be on my own property, or maybe a friend's property, so I'm good there. But this is catch-all F&G law that all but seems to prohibit use of night vision at all - FGC 2005:
It is unlawful to use or possess night vision equipment to assist in the taking of a bird, mammal, amphibian, reptile, or fish. For purposes of this subdivision, “night vision equipment” includes, but is not limited to, the following:
(1) An infrared or similar light, used in connection with an electronic viewing device.
(2) An optical device, including, but not limited to, binoculars or a scope, that uses electrical or battery powered light
This would seem to cover passive IR too.
But wait, there's more! This restriction does not apply to "The taking of mammals governed by Article 2 (commencing with Section 4180) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 4." If you follow along, this is FGC 4180-4190, regarding depredators, or fur-bearing mammals that are injuring property. Under 4186 it looks I can take cottontail rabbits and brush rabbits "when damage to crops or forage is being experienced on that land."
I think the "sniperscope" regulation of PC468 is based upon a poor understanding of night vision devices, and was an emotional over-reaction to some hypothetical danger cooked up by a legislator watching too many Hollywood action movies. It says something when you're the only state in the country with a flat-out ban on firearm-installed night vision devices.
While I have utter disdain for emotion-based laws like PC468, I do have some respect for the Fish and Game laws, because ostensibly, they were enacted with conservation as the chief objective. Some of these laws and regulations may be worth revisiting now for repeal by seeing if those circumstances existing at the time of enactment still hold, but fundamentally, I have to believe they came from a pure place (or as pure of a place as legislation can).
As I understand the law, there may be some limited circumstances where night vision for hunting is permissible, but it's not for all places in California, for all species, or in all situations.
