Bills Firearm bills awaiting Governor's signature (2025)

[GoldensRule]

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]

Good letter, if you like I'll help you shorten and punch it up a bit, unfortunately we are on a tight schedule today. This one is on the right track in my opinion. Ignore the trolls and the people who tell you it's too late. some people just prefer to wallow in their own misery instead of actually trying to do something. It's never too late to speak up in a democracy.

 

[Dvrjon]

Good letter, if you like I'll help you shorten and punch it up a bit, unfortunately we are on a tight schedule today. This one is on the right track in my opinion. Ignore the trolls and the people who tell you it's too late. some people just prefer to wallow in their own misery instead of actually trying to do something. It's never too late to speak up in a democracy.

Your derision belies your ignorance. Having worked in state legislative functions for over two decades I can assure you this letter is too late to have an impact. The decisions on sign/veto have already been made and sign/veto messages are being crafted. Signing events are being planned for location, participants, symbolism and impact. The crunch now is not a democratic discussion, it is a bureaucratic process to clear the decks prior to constitutional deadlines.

 

[Jimi Jah]

If you print up 10,000 of those letters, get someone to sign each one and snail mail the hardcopy it will get noticed.

Staffers will have to throw each and everyone of them out. Maybe it fills the wastebasket for a day. Then, the agenda moves on.

 

[ikeo1]

It does very much matter which party. Gone are the days when "getting things done" by either party meant good things for the nation.

Right now, we have one "party" whose goal is to destroy democracy in the United States. As recently as this week we have witnessed the near destruction of the 1st amendment and the 4th amendment! We have a totally corrupt SCOTUS, engineered by that same party. We have a completely lawless and virtually immune president, engineered again by super wealthy oligarchs that one party who is demagoguing millions upon millions of Americans, who is betraying our nation and our allies by aligning himself with authoritarians and dictators all over the world, who is illegally applying stifling and regressive taxes to Americans through asinine tariffs all so the super rich can benefit.

We have a party that is completely destroying the public health systems in the country and that is destroying scientific research because well, they do not understand science and the super wealthy don't want to pay for it. This same party is also militarizing the United States and using that military to repress and intimidate our own citizens and to literally murder suspected criminals outside the country without due process.

Getting things done by the "party" in control means dividing and destroying the USA. This is absolutely not the case with the other party.

Ikeo1, you do not like the word, but without any doubt we now have a (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.

Let’s be real, he’s going to expire in the next 5-10 years and the movement will fizzle without leadership. Kirk would’ve taken the reigns where I don’t think Vance has the personality.

There’s a chance for reconciliation but if you make it absolute it stays absolute. There’s a new generation of politicians coming up. This generation is both more compassionate and lacking of empathy. I think it’s important to scout younger leaders. These next four years are already decided. You have to honor the presidency, or at least I do. Then use elections the way they’re meant to.

Whats destroyed can be rebuilt. Sometimes a fire is needed to clear the brush. It’s not like I want it but it’s a reset. Funding can eventually come back after the pain is felt on this generation.

IMHO Progress isnt always pretty, but times like these force people to look outside or participate. The only thing we need to make sure is people don’t go too far and use the system that was built or amend it.

 

[GoldensRule]

Your derision belies your ignorance. Having worked in state legislative functions for over two decades I can assure you this letter is too late to have an impact. The decisions on sign/veto have already been made and sign/veto messages are being crafted. Signing events are being planned for location, participants, symbolism and impact. The crunch now is not a democratic discussion, it is a bureaucratic process to clear the decks prior to constitutional deadlines.

Yes, pessimists are well known for their expansive experience with failure. Also, your logical fallacy of an appeal to personal experience is lovely but, I've never been impressed by anyone's professed credentials on the internet. Sure, you can say that a letter will be ineffective and the odds are it won't work but, throughout history, many things that pessimists have said would never work, have indeed been successful.

To discourage effort is to simply surrender, it's doubly as offensive when the pessimist has literally done nothing himself to fight the battle. It's rather "French" in my opinion.

 

[GoldensRule]

Let’s be real, he’s going to expire in the next 5-10 years and the movement will fizzle without leadership. Kirk would’ve taken the reigns where I don’t think Vance has the personality.

Are you suggesting it's ok for Trump to remain in power for the next 5 to 10 years and that the nation MIGHT be released from fascism (phascism) after he dies? This is somewhat reminiscent of what happened with Francisco Franco in Spain who established a (Natsi) aligned (phascist) government in 1939 and oppressed the entire nation until 1975 when he died.

I serious hope you aren't advocating for or condoning this possibility. Do you have any idea just how much damage can be done to the entire world by having an authoritarian / (phascist) world's only super power? This isn't just some political game, this has absolutely dire implications. This also is not akin to having a brush fire in your backyard or having a house burn down.

Speculating that no one could really take Trump's place as the American Fuhrer is somewhat short sighted. Once fascism (phascism) is able to destroy our free elections and is able to militarily and through secret police forces like ICE, suppress the populace, then like the parasite it is, fascism (phascism) will reign over the nation indefinitely and the only way out will be through bloodshed. Just look at Putin's Russia for a real time example of the dangers of authoritarianism.

 

[Jcwatchdog]

Let’s be real. There aren’t any good Republicans right now. The R team doesn’t have an independent voice. They are like Borg currently. Resistance is futile. Don’t forget Schwarzenegger was an R. Things were great then either and when Bush II was Pres we spent 2 decades at war because they got the information wrong. Difference then. Freedom fries, your either with us or against us. It’s all marketing optics.

It doesn’t matter which party, what matters should be who’s effective. Who’s the effective speaker that can get things done and it should be regardless of party.

Watching who the possible up and comers now are important to track what they say and what they do. The person with the best results should be the one we push for IMO

You can’t equate Bush with Trump. Maybe it wasn’t great, but not like now. There was no where near the level of animosity to Bush as to Trump, regardless of what Bush did. It was a completely different feel for politics back then. Most people didn’t care and didn’t identify politics as being so important to them that they’d attack people based on if they liked one candidate or another. Also, no one was wearing a “Bush” hat, people just didn’t have that level of awareness to care.

When Schwarzenegger ran, he ran as a RINO, and people knew that. He had Hollywood and a big name behind him. He could have just as well run as a democrat and won. They voted on the persona, not the person.

 

[M_N04H]

Wonder how this affects Glocks on CCWs

 

[ZeroFoxGiven]

I just do not understand how something this unconstitutional can come to pass. It blows my mind how some here are even trying to rationalize it. After everything here in California we have lost already, how can you possibly be ok with more of our rights being stripped away. I do not understand Americans who are ok with any of their rights being stripped away, regardless on how one labels it.

"The land of the free" use to mean something.

 

[M_N04H]

 

[ikeo1]

Wonder how this affects Glocks on CCWs

Thanks for the reminder...

Ultimately, we need to figure out better ways to be heard IN California.

 

[star.3d]

My input:
-The letter is too long. FAR too long. Staff will read the subject line, put it in the “opposed-veto” file and close the lid.
-Your letter is too late.
- -Your input would have been better applied in a (more concise) letter to the author with copies to the members of the policy committees.
-If you are seeking to persuade by claiming to support the Gov, then lead with that. Buried at the end is pointless…you already said you want a veto.

There’s more, but these are the important issues.

Thanks @Dvrjon - I appreciate your input. When you say policy committees you mean Safety and Appropriations in this case? Time-wise, I think this only would've been possible in the chamber the bill originated in (or you're saying I should proactively contact the committees before they receive the bill?). I did write to bill sponsors (Arreguin & Gipson), which feels especially useless, and my own representatives, but not committee members. And bill text was amended as recently as 9/2/25; I'm struggling to keep up. Hopefully I'll get better at this.

I assume that the Brady Campaign, Everytown, and other anti-gun groups make a concerted effort to get individuals to endorse bills from the getgo - some have upwards of 60 private citizens endorsing the bill at the first analysis. To me, it feels unacceptable for team 2A to have zero to one individual tallied in opposition. And - dare I say this outloud - I think this may in part be a lack of collaboration and an inability to formulate cogent messaging. That's why I'm here trying; because I don't see it elsewhere.

 

[star.3d]

It blows my mind how some here are even trying to rationalize it.

Personally, I'm trying to move past the grief and understand how and why voters/legislators rationalize it. I do plenty of gun evangelism in social circles , but I can't debate liberal voters on the basis of "freedom" - it's not effective. I've talked to kids who work for the Brady Campaign, but they're not thinking about it at a high level and know nothing about the legislative process. Fwiw, I have gotten Brady staff to the point of acknowledging "yeah, I've considered buying one" and "California has enough gun laws". That's what I see needing done at a broader level; bring folks into the gun community, and help them understand that responsible gun ownership is not an oxymoron.

 

[Ro-bo]

Right now the state's leadership is focused on flipping vulnerable districts, by way of questionable means, all to show Texas and Trump the error of their ways and prove that two wrongs make a right. Newsom's office isn't interested in weighing the finer points of a well-reasoned response to legislation that's functionally already passed.

 

[Dvrjon]

Yes, pessimists are well known for their expansive experience with failure. Also, your logical fallacy of an appeal to personal experience is lovely but, I've never been impressed by anyone's professed credentials on the internet. Sure, you can say that a letter will be ineffective and the odds are it won't work but, throughout history, many things that pessimists have said would never work, have indeed been successful.

To discourage effort is to simply surrender, it's doubly as offensive when the pessimist has literally done nothing himself to fight the battle. It's rather "French" in my opinion.

I can’t track all of the logical fallacies in your comment, but am stunned by the ad hominem for the French. C’est tres gauche!

Your ignorance vs my experience. I’ll take that any day. I have been successful, both professionally and in private life, in influencing the course of a number of pieces of legislation from school financing, healthcare and gun laws. There is nothing pessimistic about my stance. It is simply the truth of the activities inside “the Horseshoe”.

And what, pray tell, is your purported experience in working within the legislative processes of the state? No need to respond, as it would simply be a “logical fallacy of an appeal to personal experience”. (But, we’ll overlook your implausible use of that term).

Take a note: Reality is not pessimism.

 

[Dooder]

I'm expecting Newsom to veto 1127, but then for the Senate and House supermajority to override it. That way for his presidential aspirations he gets to say he didn't ban Glocks, while Glocks still get banned.

That sounds good too. The bill lacks specificity to be functional anyways. But anyways here's another perspective - he doesn't veto and doesn't sign. He doesn't have to sign for the bill to become a law. It automatically does when it times out. So he can say "I didn't actively sign it", "oops I forgot", "the winery is too busy and I couldn't get to it", or whatever and it's said and done. Yes he didn't actively veto it, but he didn't actively sign it either....just another perspective.

 

[Serbianguy]

This is the sentiment people want you to think and why negative echo chambering works. It takes time to turn the tide so don’t expect quick results. Sentiment needs to change at a lower level.

No, this is the sentiment from someone who knows EXACTLY how the system works. Don’t kid yourself that things will change under California’s single party rule.

 

[ikeo1]

No, this is the sentiment from someone who knows EXACTLY how the system works. Don’t kid yourself that things will change under California’s single party rule.

If you know how the system works, you can change it. Otherwise, you don't know how the system works. This is how an engineer thinks of things. If you know EXACTLY how it works, then you know its strengths AND weaknesses. We've had Republican Governors but they F-ed up too by closing down prisons, if you recall. Also, closing up asylums.

If you know exactly how it works, and you can't change it, then you're playing victim. Complaining and pointing fingers is significantly easier than trying to make a change. How do i know this? I have an entire group at a website that wishes this site fails. I've had people constantly tell me I'm stupid and never believed this site would be of any use. Now we're inching closer to 25K members with an upcoming email system to send mail out to membership when things change. We have this in our back pocket while we develop the site. Not only that, but I also run events and turn people one by one once they get trained.

A lot of people are opening their eyes, but not when someone is an to them. People shut down. Why do you think we went from voting R to voting back to D? This was why I asked, WHO is worthy of being propped up so that we can keep track of their efforts. Keep in mind we're 1.25 years old with 25k members. Our goals will be 50k and 100k members plus their families.

If you think I'm kidding myself or do you think I have a plan to organize people to get together as we coordinate and build a site and setup matches throughout the state? It's a slow process but a path that needs to be walked. Change doesn't come by complaining nor overnight. We're building. I'm a believer that we can change sentiment over time and move this more to the middle, but it won't be easy.

 

[skb720]

If you know how the system works, you can change it. Otherwise, you don't know how the system works. This is how an engineer thinks of things. If you know EXACTLY how it works, then you know its strengths AND weaknesses. We've had Republican Governors but they F-ed up too by closing down prisons, if you recall. Also, closing up asylums.

If you know exactly how it works, and you can't change it, then you're playing victim. Complaining and pointing fingers is significantly easier than trying to make a change. How do i know this? I have an entire group at a website that wishes this site fails. I've had people constantly tell me I'm stupid and never believed this site would be of any use. Now we're inching closer to 25K members with an upcoming email system to send mail out to membership when things change. We have this in our back pocket while we develop the site. Not only that, but I also run events and turn people one by one once they get trained.

A lot of people are opening their eyes, but not when someone is an to them. People shut down. Why do you think we went from voting R to voting back to D? This was why I asked, WHO is worthy of being propped up so that we can keep track of their efforts. Keep in mind we're 1.25 years old with 25k members. Our goals will be 50k and 100k members plus their families.

If you think I'm kidding myself or do you think I have a plan to organize people to get together as we coordinate and build a site and setup matches throughout the state? It's a slow process but a path that needs to be walked. Change doesn't come by complaining nor overnight. We're building. I'm a believer that we can change sentiment over time and move this more to the middle, but it won't be easy.

Redistricting has entered the chat.

 

[Serbianguy]

If you know how the system works, you can change it. Otherwise, you don't know how the system works. This is how an engineer thinks of things. If you know EXACTLY how it works, then you know its strengths AND weaknesses. We've had Republican Governors but they F-ed up too by closing down prisons, if you recall. Also, closing up asylums.

If you know exactly how it works, and you can't change it, then you're playing victim. Complaining and pointing fingers is significantly easier than trying to make a change. How do i know this? I have an entire group at a website that wishes this site fails. I've had people constantly tell me I'm stupid and never believed this site would be of any use. Now we're inching closer to 25K members with an upcoming email system to send mail out to membership when things change. We have this in our back pocket while we develop the site. Not only that, but I also run events and turn people one by one once they get trained.

A lot of people are opening their eyes, but not when someone is an to them. People shut down. Why do you think we went from voting R to voting back to D? This was why I asked, WHO is worthy of being propped up so that we can keep track of their efforts. Keep in mind we're 1.25 years old with 25k members. Our goals will be 50k and 100k members plus their families.

If you think I'm kidding myself or do you think I have a plan to organize people to get together as we coordinate and build a site and setup matches throughout the state? It's a slow process but a path that needs to be walked. Change doesn't come by complaining nor overnight. We're building. I'm a believer that we can change sentiment over time and move this more to the middle, but it won't be easy.

After reading this, all I can say is that if you’re voting for democrats you’re part of the problem. And yes, you are kidding yourself if you think the democrats in charge of this state will ever change their views. They’ve been after the second amendment for as long as I’ve been in the gun culture, and that’s at least 50 years.