Not long after Miss E and I were married, she got a job offer from a company in Sacramento, California that would have required us to leave our home in Oklahoma for the California capital. Even though the money was good, we ultimately decided against the move for a variety of reasons, including the state's nutty politics.
That was back in the late 1990s, and things have only gotten worse since then. A bill making its way through the California Senate would punish new arrivals in the state who dare to bring their guns with them, as well as any Golden State resident who decides to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Californians would have to take a four-hour course with live-fire training to buy a gun if a bill advancing through the Legislature gets signed into law.
Senate Bill 948, by Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín, also would require gun owners moving to California to obtain a firearm safety certificate and register their firearms within 180 days of their arrival. Beginning in 2028, obtaining that certificate would require completing the training.
Technically, I suppose this isn't a "new" idea. Similar legislation was proposed last year, but didn't make it across the finish line. And passage this year isn't guaranteed either, even though state senators have amended the bill in an effort to make it appear more "reasonable."
This year’s proposal advanced from the Senate Appropriations Committee Thursday on a party-line vote with Republicans opposed. Committee members offered no comment on the measure and did not take any public testimony, which is typical for that committee.
But in March, when an earlier version of the bill would have required eight hours of training, Arreguín told the Senate Public Safety Committee the proposed training requirements would reduce gun violence and prevent accidental shootings.
“Firearm safety is essential in preventing firearm-related incidents, especially those involving children,” he said. “By strengthening training requirements and closing gaps in current law, SB 948 will ensure responsible gun ownership to keep Californians and communities safe.”
California already has a gun storage law that's supposed to precent accidental shootings, especially those involving children. Unless a gun is being carried or under the gun owner's immediate control, it must be locked up with a CalDOJ-approved gun lock or stored in a locked safe or container.
While I'm all in favor of gun owners getting training, it should not be a prerequisite for keeping or bearing arms. No other enumerated right comes with pre-conditions like that. We don't have to prove we know the laws surrounding libel or defamatory speech before exercising our First Amendment rights. There's no need to take an oath of allegiance in order to keep the military from using our homes as quarters for troops. So why would we need to take a firearms training course in order to keep a gun in the home?
I doubt California Democrats would stop there. In many jurisdictions, obtaining a carry permit requires a psychological evaluation. How long before Democrats in Sacramento made that mandatory for anyone wanting to purchase a firearm or those gun owners who are unlucky enough to move to the state?
NRA-ILA estimates there are about 115,000 gun owners who, for whatever reason, relocate to California each year. Supporters of SB 948 would like to see them become criminals simply for keeping ahold of the guns they lawfully purchased and possessed if they don't take a mandated training course. It's bad enough that California requires new residents to, among other things, submit a report and a catalog of all personaly-owned firearms to the California DOJ within 60 days of their move-in date. SB 948 would make it a misdemeanor offense to fail to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 180 days of moving to the state, and there are currently no exemptions for taking the mandated training course, even if an individual possesses a valid carry license from the state they're moving from.
SB 948 does say that "the training course requirement shall not apply to individuals with valid concealed carry weapons permits," but I suspect there's a Catch-22 there. If you have a carry license, it probably shows your name and address, right? Well, if that's not your current address because you moved to California, is that carry license still valid? California doesn't recognize any permits from other states, so are any carry permits, like a non-resident Utah permit, considered a valid carry permit as far as California is concerned?
SB 948 is ambiguous about that, but given the outright hostility the state government has towards the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms, I can't imagine that any ambiguity is going to be resolved in gun owners' favor.
The bill still has a way to go before it becomes law, but it feels like every session in Sacramento results in some new restriction (or restrictions) on the rights of California gun owners, and this year might be SB 948's turn. We'll be keeping an eye on this bill as it moves through the Senate, and will bring California Rifle & Pistol Legislative Director Rick Travis on Bearing Arms' Cam & Company if it looks like it's making significant progress.
