California Senator Anthony Portantino, author of several anti-gun measures
Previous Post
Next Post

As California’s restrictive anti-gun laws continue to be deemed unconstitutional in the courtroom—the latest being a district court earlier this week striking down the law restricting purchase of handguns and semi-auto rifles to one every 30 days—the state legislature is pushing on, considering even more measures curtailing the rights of lawful citizens.

In recent weeks, courts have struck down a law that permanently denied Second Amendment rights to people who have had felony convictions vacated, set aside or dismissed, and their rights to possess firearms fully restored, a law allowing frivolous lawsuits against the firearms industry and the state’s on-again, off-again ammo background check law. You might think anti-gun legislators in the Golden State would finally back down, but alas they refuse to do so.

Now, California lawmakers are pushing a handful of restrictive measures that would further infringe on citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Two such measures are scheduled for a hearing in the Senate Public Safety Committee on March 19. SB 1038, by Democrat state Sen. Catherine Blakespear, would cut the amount of time gun owners have to report lost or stolen firearms to 48 hours, down from five days. Such a law would make victims of theft repeat victims if they failed to meet the reporting requirement.

The other measure, SB 902, by Democrat state Sens. Richard Roth and Anthony Portantino, would add “animal mistreatment” to the list of misdemeanors that would result in a 10-year prohibition of firearms possession. Since the measure doesn’t include a clear definition of what is considered “animal mistreatment,” such a law could place California’s lawful gun owners at risk of losing their right to keep and bear arms.

Two other measures are scheduled to be heard by the same committee on April 2. SB 1160, by Sen. Portantino, would require gun owners to re-register their firearms each year and pay a yet-undetermined fee each time they re-register their guns. And SB 1253, introduced by Democrat Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez, would prohibit Californians from possessing a firearm without a valid Firearm Safety Card, with the requirement to renew the card every five years.

But wait, there’s more!

Two other measures are also under consideration, but have yet to be assigned to a committee. AB 3067, by Democrat state Assemblyman Mike Gipson, would force homeowner and rental insurance companies to ask applicants how many firearms they have in their home, along with how and where they are stored. And lastly, SB 53, again by Sen. Portantino, would ban firearm possession in the home unless the firearms are stored in a DOJ-approved locked box or safe that would deny access to anyone other than the owner.

If these measures are passed by lawmakers and sent to the desk of gun-ban advocate and still-presidential hopeful Gov. Gavin Newsom, it’s nearly certain that they will be signed into law. And if they become law, it’s likely we will hear about some of them again when pro-gun advocacy groups take the state to court over these unconstitutional restrictions.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Omg theyre all horrible, but the one about registering the gunmns every year and paying for each every year is just awful.

    Sounds like they’re just Sitting around thinking of ways that they can get their grimey talons even further into the people

    • Yup. The more burdensome the laws, the fewer the number of people who can afford to keep them, the better they feel about themselves. They also sit around seeing how to spend money they don’t have, and thinking of what new taxes they can impose to finance the deal. The most recent idea is to impose an exit tax on business and individuals who have the temerity to try to move out of state.

    • richard mcenroe
      We’ll only make REAL PROGRESS in this country when undocumented transgendered immigrants of color can buy an unregistered firearm and walk out of court a free persyn!

    • Yeah it keeps coming and here’s an example why bozo…Following Uvalde knee jerk demoRats and Rinos tried once again to use defenseless murdered children to butcher the Second Amendment.

      That was a time when I was ridiculed by shtheads on this forum for my efforts to Define Gun Control by its History. For far too long during such tragedies the side of the coin showing was the Gun Control side while the side that Defines Gun Control was kept hidden. While azzholes on this forum were barking at Defining Gun Control during Uvalde I was emailing lawmakers. Well low and behold what I had basically been saying for a long while landed on the floor of congress. Make no mistake about it the speech below help turn the tide during the Gun Control aftermath of Uvalde. Bottom line…any dumbfuk on this forum who thinks noting the History of Gun Control does not and would not matter to lawmakers can go pound sand.

    • The legislators in California are using these regulations/laws to discourage people from purchasing firearms via regulations composed of fees, timely renewals and other inconveniences designed to discourage gun ownership. While at the same time they declare their support for the 2nd Amendment.
      In short it is a scheme by which their goals are reached via an avenue other than direct confiscation.

  2. There’s no reason for them not to push.
    They get to seen as “doing something” by their base, their opposition such as it is in CA gets scapegoated as dangerous and any court challenges just cost tax dollars.

    It’s win-win-win for the antis to keep pushing.
    They may even start winning and with plenty of failed examples of gun control to point it’s pretty obvious nobody cares if it works or not because the perception and the feelz are what truly matter.

    There is no conceivable reason for them to ever stop pushing.

    • Not as long as their voters continue to support them. Personal accountability would be good, but doing it any other way besides elections seems like it would just create more tools for the party in power to use the courts against political opponents.

  3. Maybe they are just trying to wear gun rights supporters out. Litigation is not cheap, and as long as they are spending citizen tax dollars to fight gun rights they don’t care. They figure they have an endless supply of money even though the state is going broke. Imagine if Newsom was elected President, what havoc he would create for Second Amendment supporters. They must be stopped.

  4. SB 1160

    This is exactly why you don’t register your property if you can possibly avoid it. Sacramento knows about the items I was required to register in order to get my CCW (which may or may not be renewed due to our current Sheriff), but knows diddly-squat about anything beyond that.

  5. As I have been saying on this site and others for a long time. As long as they are allowed to have political control liberal/progressive democrats will never cease in their attempts to delay, deny or remove the 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights of law abiding citizens. Either through legislation or outright tyranny as was attempted by the British Crown. Regardless of any court ruling including the Supreme Court. It comes down to choices. Peaceful Subjugation or Dangerous Freedom. Remember the 77 who chose Dangerous Freedom. That you could enjoy Freedom from tyranny.

  6. Sharing the algorithm. This is from Gun Guy TV these bills going to the California legislature are as bad as it gets.

  7. The h0-m0-sex-u@ls and @the!sts who control california. Are just like the ones who controlled, the former Confederate States of America.
    In 1870 they were passing anti-civil rights laws too.

  8. Desperation. Perhaps the tide has peaked. An interesting federal case in CA:

    United States v. Rundo, members of a far-right group RAM were charged with violating the Anti-Riot Act because of some fighting between them and members of a couple Antifa groups at a demonstration. No charges brought against the Antifa groups. RAM defendants filed two motions to dismiss, and the judge granted one of the motions. He basically said to the prosecutor, both sides of this fight were equally in violation, and you selectively charged only the RAM guys and let the Antifa guys off the hook. You can’t charge RAM if you don’t also charge Antifa.

    • Its called “selective (e.g. political in this case) prosecution” and its illegal and unconstitutional. Some federal judges are starting to wake up and notice it.

      The Biden DOJ’s political prosecutions have caught the attention of federal judges. Mark Smith analyzes recent selective prosecution cases.

  9. Citizens should pass a law to sue these lawmakers for touching their rights.

    SB 1000FU: Grants any Citizen to sue members of the legislature for any attempt to restrict their 2A rights by any means, at a rate of $1000 a day, per person. *There is NO Exemptions to any position in gov’t.

    Get the lawmakers off their ass and do their jobs working on fixing calif other problems than waste money taking Citizens rights away.

    • The Supreme Court has already in 2 separate cases ruled that elected officials cannot be sued for legislation they enact. It’s called Qualified Immunity

  10. They will continue this pointless behavior while California burns to the ground around them. They do this secure in the absolute knowledge that virtue signaling is more important than solving any actual problems. It is much easier to pass a bill than to address the real problems. So far, all corrupt regimes collapse when they go too far. Hopefully that will happen to Kali.

    We are rapidly reaching the point where no one cares what laws they pass.

  11. It is high time to vote these communists out of office in California and elect solid people who actually care about our Constitution. And let me say one more thing. Our justice department no longer cares about justice! I think we ought to try refusing jury duty until we once again have a justice department the delivers equal justice to all! That might get them to see how they are simply trying to make everything politically motivated toward the left wing of this nation and against anyone who leans to the right. I also believe it is high time to institute National Concealed Carry Reciprocity!

  12. Heller already ruled that storage requirements preventing the firearm from being available for self defense are unconstitutional.

  13. “the measure doesn’t include a clear definition of what is considered “animal mistreatment,””

    Well, PETA apparently believes owning a pet is animal mistreatment, so we can start with disqualifying pet owners. Ditto butchers, ranchers, dairy farmers, anyone who sells or possesses leather products, meat packers, milk and cheese processors, furriers….

  14. This is the obvious, and only strategy they need. In Illinois, it took them three hours to pass PICA. It will take us three years to “win” at SCOTUS. Probably cost us more than $3,000,000 each time we “win.” Lawabiding gun owners will be criminals from now on. I see no set of possibilities that will stop them. Don’t worry, there will not be a civil war with actual fighting. Just endless lawsuits.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here