California Democrat Gov. Gavin Newsom signed 10 more gun control bills into law recently, expanding restrictions on firearm purchases, manufacturing technology and who qualifies as a prohibited person. The package adds new requirements for lawful gun owners and firearm industry businesses while making some changes to existing criminal enforcement and violence prevention programs.
California already requires universal background checks, generally imposes a mandatory 10-day waiting period on firearm purchases and maintains extensive restrictions on prohibited possessors. It’s not that California doesn’t have layers of redundant gun control laws that don’t actually address criminals but trample on Second Amendment rights. California is where gun control continues to generate constitutional litigation. The moves are less surprising, though, given Gov. Newsom’s 2028 presidential ambitions.
Another Requirement for Lawful Purchasers
Senate Bill 948 adds a new training requirement to California’s existing firearm ownership training certificate process. Beginning Jan. 1, 2029, affected applicants must complete at least four hours of qualifying instruction within the preceding year, including live-fire exercises at a shooting range. Some exemptions are in place.
California already requires most prospective purchasers to obtain a “firearm safety certificate,” pass a written examination and demonstrate safe firearm handling. Background checks and a waiting period impose further requirements before a lawful transfer can occur.
SB 948 introduces even more layers and Second Amendment roadblocks involving course availability, higher instructional costs, transportation considerations and access to shooting facilities. For prospective purchasers, those costs come even before taking home a lawfully purchased firearm. For instructors and ranges, the requirement creates additional demand for qualifying training.
Whether these new mandates will provide any measurable benefits beyond the existing certification system remains to be seen. There is a distinction between increasing restrictions and requirements for lawful firearm purchasers and addressing how criminals acquire firearms, almost always illegally.
A Bureau of Justice Statistics Survey of Prison Inmates found that 90 percent of state and federal prisoners who possessed firearms during their offenses obtained them somewhere other than a firearm retailer, illustrating why policies operating exclusively through lawful retail transactions almost never directly addresses the actual source of criminal firearms. A Californian buying a gun from a firearm retailer must navigate California’s acquisition requirements. Criminals don’t bother, illegally obtaining a firearm through theft or the black market.
SB 948 also expands requirements affecting people moving into California with firearms. Beginning Jan. 1, 2028, affected personal firearm importers must certify that they hold a valid firearm safety certificate or qualify for an exemption. The measure extends the firearm reporting period from 60 to 180 days. These new rules are ripe for turning otherwise lawful gun owners into criminals without even knowing it.
More Requirements, Different Approaches
Assembly Bill 2047, the Firearm Printing Prevention Act, establishes a process for requiring certain three-dimensional printers sold in California to incorporate technology intended to block firearm and machinegun conversion device designs. Implementation depends on the development of qualifying technical standards and subsequent state action. The legislation also raises First Amendment questions concerning digital code and the regulation of multipurpose technology; an uncertainty acknowledged in the California Senate Judiciary Committee’s own analysis.
Assembly Bill 1943 addresses school notifications about secure firearm storage, while Assembly Bill 1974 authorizes law enforcement agencies to establish voluntary temporary firearm storage programs. Storage education and voluntary safekeeping are distinct from restrictions imposed on lawful firearm acquisition. The Sage Journal recently published a study showing that state-level gun storage laws don’t change gun owners’ behavior when it comes to firearm storage habits in the home.
Their effectiveness should likewise be evaluated against their respective objectives rather than treating all 10 bills as interchangeable.
Other legislation in the package addresses prohibited persons and enforcement procedures. Senate Bill 1220 establishes a 10-year firearm prohibition for individuals convicted of specified offenses involving firearms with illegally altered or removed identifying marks. And Assembly Bill 1743 expands access to crime firearm tracing information, further risking the opportunity for antigun state officials from using the sensitive data for “name-and-shame” schemes to penalize lawful firearm retailers that have committed no crime. Assembly Bill 2378 establishes a taxpayer-funded Office of Community Violence Intervention, forcing law-abiding Californians to foot the bill for the criminal actions of those who break the law and cause harm.
The constitutional distinctions are equally important and several of the state’s existing firearm restrictions remain subject to federal litigation. In July, the U.S. Department of Justice challenged California’s handgun roster and restrictions on certain commonly owned semiautomatic pistols, alleging Second Amendment violations. That constitutional challenge remains pending.
California Policy, National Implications
Gov. Newsom boasts that he leads the state with the “strongest gun laws in the country” and that “his gun laws work.” But he ignores that crime is trending down across the nation and gun owners continue to grow, even in California.
California’s latest package also arrives as Gov. Newsom’s national political activity attracts attention ahead of the 2028 presidential election. He hasn’t announced yet and said he would not seek the Democrat nomination if former Vice President Kamala Harris enters the race. However, 61 percent of Democrats polled recently said they would be excited if he decided to run, while the majority — 55 percent — would not be excited if former Vice President Harris decided to run.
His firearm policy proposals, however, predate the current presidential discussion. In 2023, Gov. Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would establish a nationwide minimum firearm purchasing age of 21, universal background checks, a waiting period for firearm purchases and ban on modern sporting rifles. That failed so badly and quickly he had to walk it back and now hopes voters forget.
But the firearm industry doesn’t forget. Voters won’t either.
Larry Keane is SVP for Government and Public Affairs, Assistant Secretary and General Counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.