View this post on the web at [link removed]

Our afternoon columns are typically reserved for our paid subscribers. However, for this important issue, the full column is available to all. But there is extensive legal and political analysis behind the paywall, so our paid subscribers get additional content. What? Have you not upgraded your subscription? There’s no time like … now! Great value — and support my efforts!
⏱️ 6 min read
The New Front in California’s Campaign Against Gun Rights
Lawmakers in California have unveiled one of the most aggressive pre-purchase training mandates in the country. Senate Bill 948 [ [link removed] ], authored by State Senator Jesse Arreguín (the ultra-left-wing former Mayor of Berkeley, who led his city to declare itself a “Sanctuary City Providing Gender-Affirming Care” would require anyone seeking to purchase a firearm to first complete a state-approved eight-hour training course that includes live-fire range time. The mandate applies not to carrying a firearm in public, but to merely purchasing one.
If that sounds like a significant time and financial burden attached to a constitutional right, that’s because it is. California already requires prospective buyers to pass a written test to obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate. SB 948 would replace that already questionable requirement with a mandatory class, range instruction, and whatever additional conditions state regulators later decide to impose.
Under current Supreme Court precedent, firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation—a standard that sweeping modern training mandates may struggle to meet. This proposal is not a minor adjustment to existing law. It is a structural barrier.
The Hidden Costs of a “Right” With Conditions
Eight hours is not just a class. It is a lost day of work, lost wages for hourly employees, childcare arrangements, and travel to a state-approved range that may be nowhere near where someone lives. It also means course fees that are unlikely to be trivial. All of it comes due before a law-abiding adult can exercise a fundamental constitutional right.
Supporters describe the bill as a matter of “education” and “safety.” But if education were truly the goal, the state would make training widely accessible and affordable. It would subsidize courses and streamline attendance. Instead, the bill grants the California Department of Justice broad authority to issue regulations governing the program. That means the curriculum, costs, and logistical requirements could (will) expand over time.
That is not a neutral safety program. That is how governments discourage conduct without outright banning it.
An Uneven Burden on Those Most in Need of Self-Defense
The mandate’s real-world effects would not fall equally. Criminals do not queue up for state certificates or sit through eight-hour training courses. They do not comply with licensing schemes. Those who will feel this most are law-abiding citizens who work long hours, live paycheck to paycheck, or live far from training facilities.
Those are often the same people who live in higher-crime neighborhoods and have the strongest practical need for self-defense. Meanwhile, individuals with flexible schedules, disposable income, and easy access to training facilities will barely notice the impact.
Over time, gun ownership becomes easier for the affluent and harder for those with rigid work schedules, limited transportation, or tight finances. A right that exists equally on paper begins to function unequally in practice.
So, Does It Matter?
If SB 948 advances (did I mention the author is also the Chairman of the Senate Public Safety Committee?), it will almost certainly face legal challenges. Courts will have to decide whether forcing an eight-hour training mandate before a simple firearm purchase crosses the line from permissible regulation into an unconstitutional burden. That fight will take time.
In the meantime, the policy direction is unmistakable. Liberal lawmakers are creating new procedural and financial hurdles for people who already follow the law, adding bureaucracy to the exercise of a constitutional right.
When exercising a constitutional right starts to require a day off work, a stack of fees, and state-approved instruction just to get in the door, the debate is no longer about safety — it is about access. And access filtered through bureaucracy and cost is access that history and the Constitution do not recognize as equal.
Yes, I should note this, even though it goes without saying. Every responsible gun owner should be getting appropriate training. But without government coercion.
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CCW PROCESS - UPDATE - GOOD NEWS
Kostas Moros, a must-follow 2A voice on X [ [link removed] ] (the Director of Legal Research and Education with the Second Amendment Foundation [ [link removed] ]). He posted this up earlier today… A good sign.
PAID SUBSCRIBER BONUS: LEGAL ANALYSIS BELOW THE PAYWALL ON THIS NEW, DREADFUL BILL…
• How the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision reshaped gun-law challenges
• Why SB 948’s pre-purchase training mandate is legally different from concealed-carry requirements
• The historical record on firearm ownership regulations at the Founding
• The core constitutional test courts will apply — and why this law may struggle under it...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?