Despite the fact that several current California gun laws are being challenged in court, anti-gun Golden State lawmakers are carrying on undaunted.
Lawmakers recently finalized passage of two Senate bills and one Assembly bill, each placing new restrictions on lawful gun owners while doing little to address violent crime. All three have now gone to Gov. Gavin Newsom for his consideration.
According to the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, the most egregious of the three is Senate Bill 948, which, if signed into law, will impose sweeping new firearm training requirements on Californians seeking a Firearm Safety Certificate.
“Senate Bill 948 dramatically expands California’s Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC) requirements by mandating a minimum four-hour training course beginning in 2029, including live-fire exercises and state-prescribed classroom instruction,” NRA-ILA wrote in a legislative update. “Criminal misuse of firearms is not the result of insufficient government mandates, yet this bill imposes additional regulatory burdens on law-abiding citizens while doing nothing to address crime.”
Under the enrolled version of the bill, beginning Jan. 1, 2029, applicants for an FSC would have to complete at least four hours of training within the previous year. That training would include classroom instruction covering firearm safety, California gun laws, storage, transportation and self-defense, along with live-fire exercises demonstrating safe handling and basic shooting proficiency.
SB 948 would also impose new requirements on people moving into California with firearms. Beginning Jan. 1, 2028, personal firearm importers would generally be required to obtain an FSC or qualify for an exemption and certify that status to the California Department of Justice.
The other Senate bill sent to the governor is SB 1220, which would add another misdemeanor to California’s list of offenses that trigger a 10-year firearm prohibition.
“Specifically, a person convicted of possessing, selling, transferring, or otherwise dealing with a firearm that has had its identifying marks or serial number altered,” NRA-ILA explained. “While existing law already makes it a misdemeanor to possess or transfer a firearm with such traits, this bill expands California’s ever-growing list of misdemeanor offenses that can result in the loss of constitutional rights.”
Under the bill, anyone convicted on or after Jan. 1, 2027, of the applicable misdemeanor involving a firearm with altered, removed or obliterated identifying marks would be prohibited from owning, purchasing, receiving or possessing a firearm for 10 years.
The lone Assembly measure to receive final approval and land on Newsom’s desk is Assembly Bill 1743. If signed, the bill would expand California’s firearm-owner data-sharing framework by increasing access to information maintained in the state’s Automated Firearms System and related databases.
“Expanding this system raises significant concerns given California’s track record of protecting firearm owner data,” NRA-ILA warned. “In 2022, the California Department of Justice exposed the personal information of thousands of firearm owners and concealed carry permit holders in a widely reported data breach.”
NRA-ILA is encouraging California members to contact Newsom’s office and urge him to veto all three measures. Given Newsom’s longstanding support for additional gun-control laws, however, a veto would come as something of a surprise.
Newsom has made gun control a prominent part of his political identity for years. As lieutenant governor, he spearheaded California’s Proposition 63 gun-control initiative, and as governor he has repeatedly signed legislation tightening the state’s firearm laws. In 2023, for example, he signed legislation imposing an additional 11% state tax on firearms and ammunition and another measure broadly restricting where Californians could legally carry firearms.
That history takes on additional significance as Newsom increasingly positions himself on the national political stage. He is widely discussed as a potential contender for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination, although he has not formally announced a campaign.
Politically, that leaves little obvious incentive for Newsom to break with gun-control advocates by vetoing these bills. Signing them, meanwhile, is unlikely to cost him much support among gun owners who already oppose his record on the Second Amendment.
Ultimately, Newsom is likely to make his decision with both California politics and his broader national ambitions in mind. If he signs the bills into law, there’s also a good chance the courts haven’t heard the last of them—particularly SB 948 and its mandatory training requirement.