Here's my latest attempt at a letter regarding SB704. I've tried to take a more stately tone, as y'all have recommended. It looks very long here... Thoughts?
Subject: Please Veto SB 704: A bill with unintended consequences
Dear Governor Newsom,
I am writing to express my concern regarding SB-704 (Arreguín) and its proposed regulation of firearm barrels. While I appreciate the intent to reduce the proliferation of ghost guns and improve public safety, I believe this bill risks unintentionally harming lawful businesses and firearm owners in California and carries substantial political risk.
As a lawful California firearm owner, I respectfully urge you to veto SB 704, or to request substantial revisions to address the following concerns:
I. Ineffective Barrier to Building Ghost Guns
SB 704 aims to prevent minors and prohibited individuals from building untraceable firearms, but it misdiagnoses the root of the problem. California already has strict laws governing unfinished receivers and 3D-printed firearms, and prosecutors have the tools to charge those who manufacture ghost guns. Rather than focus on enforcing those laws more effectively, this bill introduces a second layer of regulation – this time on barrels – as if adding one more legal obstacle will deter someone already willing to break the law. It will not. Instead, it risks sweeping up otherwise lawful gun owners who may unknowingly purchase a barrel in the same way they always have, now criminalized under SB 704. Worse, the bill does not and cannot achieve tight control of all sources of barrels, particularly out-of-state retailers. In the end, the burden will fall on the wrong people, while criminals continue to sidestep the rules.
II. Economic Harm to California Businesses
SB 704 would require all transfers or sales of firearm barrels to occur in person through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL), with eligibility checks and recordkeeping. However, many lawful businesses that manufacture, import, or sell barrels in California are not FFLs, as their operations fall outside of ATF’s licensing definitions. This includes parts manufacturers, specialty retailers, and distributors – all currently operating legally and responsibly. SB 704 would likely disrupt hundreds of such businesses statewide, potentially hampering hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity. The burden would fall hardest on small and mid-sized businesses. Moreover, the bill appears to leave a regulatory gap between January 1, 2026, and July 1, 2027, when FFLs would be expected to facilitate barrel transfers without clear authority or process for verifying a purchaser’s eligibility. This creates confusion and legal risk for dealers and consumers alike.
III. Unintended Market Expansion
Because many affected businesses are ineligible for a federal firearms license under current federal law, SB 704 may incentivize them to expand into ammunition or firearm sales simply to qualify for FFL status. This would be an ironic and counterproductive outcome for a bill aimed at reducing access to firearms and related components.
IV. Safety Risks for Lawful Gun Owners
Barrels are consumable components that wear out over time. A damaged barrel can cause explosions and serious injury or death. Restricting access to replacement barrels will discourage proper maintenance and introduce new safety risks, especially for law-abiding owners in rural areas and major cities such as Los Angeles or San Francisco that already have limited access to FFLs.
V. Broader Political Considerations
California has long been at the forefront of firearm regulation. But many lawful gun owners – including those of us who have supported you – are growing concerned about laws that go too far in restricting legal access to parts and accessories.
If you do run for national office, as many expect, your record on firearms will face intense scrutiny. There is already widespread perception that California’s gun policies are out of touch, especially in battleground states where millions of voters value firearm rights, and SB 704 risks amplifying this. Showing nuance here would send a powerful signal that your leadership believes restrictions must be balanced against the rights to lawful gun ownership.
In closing, I ask you to consider whether SB 704 achieves its stated goals. I urge you to veto this bill or push for significant revisions to ensure it targets unlawful activity without penalizing responsible ownership or commerce.
Thank you for your time and service.
Sincerely,
[Your Name], [Your City]
Subject: Please Veto SB 704: A bill with unintended consequences
Dear Governor Newsom,
I am writing to express my concern regarding SB-704 (Arreguín) and its proposed regulation of firearm barrels. While I appreciate the intent to reduce the proliferation of ghost guns and improve public safety, I believe this bill risks unintentionally harming lawful businesses and firearm owners in California and carries substantial political risk.
As a lawful California firearm owner, I respectfully urge you to veto SB 704, or to request substantial revisions to address the following concerns:
I. Ineffective Barrier to Building Ghost Guns
SB 704 aims to prevent minors and prohibited individuals from building untraceable firearms, but it misdiagnoses the root of the problem. California already has strict laws governing unfinished receivers and 3D-printed firearms, and prosecutors have the tools to charge those who manufacture ghost guns. Rather than focus on enforcing those laws more effectively, this bill introduces a second layer of regulation – this time on barrels – as if adding one more legal obstacle will deter someone already willing to break the law. It will not. Instead, it risks sweeping up otherwise lawful gun owners who may unknowingly purchase a barrel in the same way they always have, now criminalized under SB 704. Worse, the bill does not and cannot achieve tight control of all sources of barrels, particularly out-of-state retailers. In the end, the burden will fall on the wrong people, while criminals continue to sidestep the rules.
II. Economic Harm to California Businesses
SB 704 would require all transfers or sales of firearm barrels to occur in person through a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL), with eligibility checks and recordkeeping. However, many lawful businesses that manufacture, import, or sell barrels in California are not FFLs, as their operations fall outside of ATF’s licensing definitions. This includes parts manufacturers, specialty retailers, and distributors – all currently operating legally and responsibly. SB 704 would likely disrupt hundreds of such businesses statewide, potentially hampering hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity. The burden would fall hardest on small and mid-sized businesses. Moreover, the bill appears to leave a regulatory gap between January 1, 2026, and July 1, 2027, when FFLs would be expected to facilitate barrel transfers without clear authority or process for verifying a purchaser’s eligibility. This creates confusion and legal risk for dealers and consumers alike.
III. Unintended Market Expansion
Because many affected businesses are ineligible for a federal firearms license under current federal law, SB 704 may incentivize them to expand into ammunition or firearm sales simply to qualify for FFL status. This would be an ironic and counterproductive outcome for a bill aimed at reducing access to firearms and related components.
IV. Safety Risks for Lawful Gun Owners
Barrels are consumable components that wear out over time. A damaged barrel can cause explosions and serious injury or death. Restricting access to replacement barrels will discourage proper maintenance and introduce new safety risks, especially for law-abiding owners in rural areas and major cities such as Los Angeles or San Francisco that already have limited access to FFLs.
V. Broader Political Considerations
California has long been at the forefront of firearm regulation. But many lawful gun owners – including those of us who have supported you – are growing concerned about laws that go too far in restricting legal access to parts and accessories.
If you do run for national office, as many expect, your record on firearms will face intense scrutiny. There is already widespread perception that California’s gun policies are out of touch, especially in battleground states where millions of voters value firearm rights, and SB 704 risks amplifying this. Showing nuance here would send a powerful signal that your leadership believes restrictions must be balanced against the rights to lawful gun ownership.
In closing, I ask you to consider whether SB 704 achieves its stated goals. I urge you to veto this bill or push for significant revisions to ensure it targets unlawful activity without penalizing responsible ownership or commerce.
Thank you for your time and service.
Sincerely,
[Your Name], [Your City]
Last edited:
don't read the CAguns forum. 
(possibly my body as well? my money went into AR barrels. dgaf about Glocks)
(phascist) party in control and the other party is one of democracy and opportunity for all, not just Caucasians. To deny this is to deny reality.