The new year often brings with it a sense of hope. The changing of the calendar somehow triggers something within us that makes us feel like this is a good time to make changes. "New year, new me," is a common enough phrase on social media, after all.

It's also a time when a lot of new laws go into effect. People are more primed for it to hit then, or so it seems to me.

Unless we're talking about gun control in California, in which case I don't know that you can ever be ready enough, despite the abundant amount of practice one might have, and all that practice is going to be needed because several new anti-gun laws are going into effect.

Back in September, 2024 CA Governor Newsome signed legislation aimed at reducing gun violence and preventing mass shootings.

"Governor Newsom today signed a bipartisan legislative package to further reinforce California’s nation-leading gun laws and prevent traumatic incidents of mass violence," a press release from Newsome reads. "The laws build on California’s successful strategies to address gun violence, including new measures to reduce domestic violence."

In 2025, several new gun laws will go into effect in California.

AB 2917 This bill would require the court to additionally consider a recent threat of violence or act of violence directed toward another group or location in deciding to issue a restraining order to prevent a person from purchasing a firearm or ammunition.

AB 574 This bill would, beginning on March 1, 2025, additionally require the register or record to include the acknowledgment by the purchaser or transferee that they have, within the past 30 days, confirmed possession of every firearm that they own or possess.

AB 1598 This bill would require firearm dealers to provide safety pamphlets to gun buyers explaining the reasons for and risks of owning a firearm.

AB 1598 is stupid and pointless, but in the grand scheme of things, won't accomplish much. It's mostly designed to scare people into not buying a gun or into selling it after they do, but it won't really have any real effect.

AB 2917 doesn't make a lot of sense to me, either. Why wouldn't the court already do that? I don't agree with Rahimi's finding that a TRO should be enough to remove someone's gun rights, but the idea of restraining orders is a different thing entirely, and one would imagine that threats against specific groups or locations should already be considered.

But AB 574 is deceptively insidious.

What this is about is making sure they know exactly what guns you have at all times. It's confirming that you still have them so that there's no worries about a lack of communication between databases. If a gun is stolen, you'll be required to confirm that to officials when transferring a firearm. Every single time.

The only reason for the government to know who owns what guns is so that they know which doors to knock on if or when they decide to ban something. That's it. AB 574 is designed to try and make sure you can't claim that you don't have those guns anymore because you'd have confirmed you still had them in far too many cases.