California Democrats Are Once Again Trying To Make It A Lot Harder For You To Legally Purchase A Firearm
SB 948 would pile new training, live-fire, range-access, and criminal-compliance burdens onto Californians already trapped in one of America’s harshest gun-control regimes.
Typically, our afternoon content is either reserved for our paid subscribers or exclusive to those of you who financially support this effort. But because I’m traveling today, no extra goodies on this one.
You can subscribe for FREE to get most of our content delivered to your inbox. A PAID subscription is $7 a month or $70 a year, and it gets you access to ALL of my stuff (like this full column). Why subscribe? Because now more than ever, you need someone calling balls and strikes, and who isn’t owned by interest groups.
You can listen to this post on our podcast feed, So, Does It Matter? SPOKEN. It’s available on your favorite podcasting app, or you can find it here.
🕐 7-minute read
California Democrats Are Coming For Gun Owners Again
Not content with having built one of the most hostile legal environments for gun ownership anywhere in the country, Capitol progressives are on the verge of pushing another draconian firearms bill through the State Senate — aimed squarely at law-abiding Californians who simply want to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
The bill is SB 948, authored by Democratic State Senator Jesse Arreguín of Berkeley (of course). It passed out of the State Senate yesterday on a party-line vote and now heads to the Assembly, having previously cleared the Senate Public Safety Committee and Senate Appropriations Committee by the same margin.
Supporters describe the measure in soothing language — this is about “safety,” “education,” “responsible ownership.” But the actual effect of SB 948 is not subtle. It would make it more time-consuming, more expensive, and more difficult for ordinary Californians to lawfully buy a firearm. It would also impose new burdens on people who move here with guns they already legally own.
This bill is not aimed at violent criminals. Criminals do not care about state-issued safety cards, certified instructors, range appointments, or compliance paperwork. SB 948 is aimed at people who intend to obey the law — and therefore can be made to endure every new obstacle Sacramento invents.
SB 948 Would Turn A Simple Safety Card Into A New Obstacle Course
As a gun owner myself, I obtained a California Firearm Safety Certificate before purchasing my firearms. The process is straightforward: study a state booklet, take a multiple-choice exam, and get graded on the spot. Quick, efficient, relatively easy — more like the written portion of a driver’s license test than a government gatekeeping exercise.
SB 948 would blow that up.
Beginning July 1, 2028, anyone applying for a new Firearm Safety Certificate would first have to complete at least four hours of mandatory training, including at least one hour of live-fire shooting at an actual firing range, under the supervision of a DOJ-certified instructor. Applicants would also have to demonstrate safe handling and basic shooting proficiency before receiving the certificate required to purchase most firearms in California.
That is not a modest revision. It is a new government-controlled obstacle course placed directly in front of a constitutional right. SB 948 is not about encouraging training — responsible gun owners already train. It is about mandating a state-approved process as a legal precondition to exercising the right to buy a firearm.
And these aren’t abstract concerns. Prospective buyers would have to secure class availability, find a range, pay for instruction, pay for range time and ammunition, and carve out hours of their lives before they may even apply for the document necessary to make a lawful purchase. The current FSC costs $25 and can be completed in a single visit. SB 948 replaces that with a process that will inevitably be slower, costlier, and less accessible.
Who does that punish most? Imagine a single mother who works full-time as a nurse. She lives in a dangerous neighborhood and decides she wants a firearm for personal protection. Under current law, she can study for the test, walk into a gun store, take the exam, and begin the lawful purchase process. Under SB 948, she must first find a qualifying class, take time away from work or family, pay whatever the training and range costs turn out to be, and complete a live-fire requirement — for a gun she does not yet own, since she has not been permitted to buy one yet.
This is what Sacramento calls gun safety. In the real world, it means that people with the least spare time and the least disposable income face the greatest burden in exercising a fundamental right.
California Already Makes Lawful Gun Ownership Hard Enough
That is what makes SB 948 especially offensive. California already has one of the most elaborate and punitive gun-control regimes in America: background checks, a ten-day waiting period, a Firearm Safety Certificate for most purchases, severe restrictions on which handguns may be sold, regulated ammunition purchases, bans on broad categories of firearms and magazines, and a dense web of rules governing transfers, transportation, and storage. The state is also deeply hostile to carrying a firearm for self-defense, imposing substantial requirements on concealed-carry permits and repeatedly seeking to restrict where permit holders may actually carry — some of those restrictions still tied up in court.
No wonder SB 948 is drawing fierce opposition. The California Rifle & Pistol Association, Gun Owners of California, and the NRA have all lined up against it. CRPA has warned that the bill would turn the FSC into a licensing scheme; Gun Owners of California calls it a permit-to-purchase proposal. I spoke with Rick Travis, the Legislative Director for CRPA, who told me about this bill, “This is a license to license, own, and purchase a firearm, which is highly unconstitutional.”
Moving To California With Your Own Guns? Sacramento Has New Demands
SB 948 also reaches people who move here with firearms they already lawfully own. Under current law, new residents bringing firearms into California must report them to the Department of Justice. SB 948 would require those residents to also obtain a valid Firearm Safety Certificate — meaning the full training and live-fire regime — within 180 days of arrival, effective after 2028.
A law-abiding citizen moves from Nevada, Arizona, Texas, or Florida with firearms he bought legally, possesses legally, and has never misused. Sacramento’s response: Welcome to California. Now take our class, find our range, earn our certificate, file our paperwork, and do it on time. Miss the requirement, and the bill creates misdemeanor exposure.
That provision tells you everything you need to know about what this bill really is. This is not merely a prospective purchase rule. It reflects a broader mindset: lawful gun ownership is not a right to be respected, but a condition to be managed, supervised, and punished when citizens fail to comply with Sacramento’s latest mandate.
So, Does It Matter?
California Democrats cannot repeal the Second Amendment, so they keep trying to make it harder to exercise. They surround the right with fees, waiting periods, rosters, permitting rules, carry restrictions, training mandates, compliance deadlines, and criminal penalties. Each new bill is defended as modest. Taken together, they form an unmistakable campaign of attrition against lawful gun ownership.
The public-safety case for SB 948 is weak. Criminals will not be deterred by four hours of approved instruction or a live-fire certification requirement. The people who bear the costs are the citizens who actually try to comply with the law — and that is plainly the point.
Think about what this logic would look like applied to the First Amendment. Before publishing an opinion column, should Californians be required to complete a government-approved civics course, demonstrate “responsible speech proficiency,” and obtain a state-issued certificate? The absurdity is obvious when you apply it to free speech. Someone should explain why it’s any different when applied to the right to keep and bear arms.
Take Action Now!
Readers who want to oppose SB 948 should act now. The California Rifle & Pistol Association has created a legislative action page allowing Californians to contact their lawmakers. Go there now.
California Democrats may control the Legislature. They do not control the Constitution.