Copper Jacket TV host William says California’s SB948, which he has called the worst gun bill currently moving through the state, has changed in important ways after new amendments were added late in the legislative process.
In his recent video, William told viewers that he normally tries not to cover the same topic repeatedly within one week, but said SB948 had seen “major developments” that deserved another look because the bill is no longer in the exact form gun owners saw earlier.
According to William, SB948 is California’s new “permit to purchase” proposal, though the state frames the issue through changes to the firearm safety certificate process. He said the core problem is that the bill would make the certificate much more burdensome to obtain, while turning what should be a protected right into something that looks and functions more like a state-controlled privilege.
The earlier version of the bill, as William described it, required at least eight hours of classroom training and one hour of range time before someone could obtain the certificate. He argued that requirement would come with new costs, scheduling problems, travel, and other hurdles just to get what he called “a little card” showing that the state had authorized a person to exercise a constitutional right.
The amendments have changed some of those details, but William said the larger concern remains: California would still be placing a training mandate and state permission structure between residents and the ability to legally acquire firearms.
A Bill Pulled From Suspense At The Last Minute
William said SB948 had been moving quickly through the process before landing in the Senate Appropriations Committee’s suspense file, where costly bills are often held while lawmakers consider their impact on the state budget.
He said he had hoped the bill would stay there because California is already under financial pressure, and the measure appeared expensive to implement. In his view, that made the suspense file one of the few realistic places where the bill might have stalled before advancing.
Instead, William said SB948 was pulled from suspense and moved to the Senate floor with only hours left before a deadline. He described the move as last minute, saying the public did not immediately have access to the updated details because the legislative website had not yet posted the changes.
Once the state’s legislative information site was updated, William said it became clear that the bill’s author had made significant amendments before it passed out of appropriations. That is where the latest version became a little less sweeping in some areas, though he stressed that “less terrible” does not mean acceptable.
This is one of those process moments that often gets missed outside political circles, but it matters because a bill can look nearly dead one day and suddenly be alive again after quiet negotiations and technical changes. William’s frustration is clearly rooted not just in the policy itself, but in the speed and timing of the move.
New Residents Would Get More Time To Comply
One of the most notable changes, William said, deals with people who move into California with firearms and would need to obtain the new firearm safety certificate.
Under the amended version, he said the compliance period was extended from 60 days to 180 days. In practical terms, that means new residents would have six months instead of two months to find a California Department of Justice-certified instructor, schedule and complete the required training, and handle the related paperwork.
William acknowledged that 180 days is more workable than 60 days, especially for someone who has just moved into the state and is already dealing with everything that comes with relocating. He said the earlier version would have been unrealistic unless someone found an instructor with immediate availability and completed the process almost right away.
Still, he described that change as a modification to the timeline, not a fix to the underlying policy. His argument is that giving people more time to comply with what he views as an unconstitutional requirement does not make the requirement legitimate.
He also noted that people moving into California already have paperwork obligations involving firearms they bring into the state, and he questioned how many people actually know about or comply with those rules in practice.
Training Requirement Cut, But Not Removed
The more important amendment, according to William, involves the training mandate itself.
He said the bill no longer appears to require the original eight hours of classroom time plus one hour of live-fire range training. Instead, the amended version lowers the requirement to four total hours, including the range portion, while also adding and clarifying language about the approved curriculum.
That is a substantial cut in time, but William said the same principle still applies. Residents would still need to locate a DOJ-certified instructor, spend time in a required class, complete live-fire training, and pay the costs attached to the process before obtaining the certificate.
William also pointed to language saying that an applicant for a firearm safety certificate on or after July 1, 2028, must have completed a qualifying training course within the prior year. He said that wording appears somewhat vague and might allow certain recent training, such as a concealed carry class, to count if it covered the required material.
But he also questioned how many people that would actually help. If a person had already taken a qualifying class within the previous year, he argued, there is a good chance that person may already have a firearm safety certificate, which would make the practical benefit narrow.
This is where the bill becomes complicated for ordinary gun owners, because the details are no longer just about whether training exists but which training counts, when it was taken, who approved it, and whether it satisfies the state’s curriculum. That sort of complexity can become its own barrier even before a person reaches the counter at a gun store.
“The Core Problem Still Exists”
Despite the amendments, William said SB948’s central flaw remains intact because it still requires people to complete state-approved training before receiving permission to purchase and own firearms.
He said that means residents would still be forced to spend time and money to obtain a state-issued card before exercising a right, and that the card could still be revoked. In his view, that structure treats the Second Amendment differently from other constitutional rights.
William asked viewers to imagine California requiring a state card before someone could attend church, buy a book, or remain silent when questioned by police. He said those kinds of restrictions would likely be struck down quickly or never seriously entertained in the first place.
His argument is familiar in gun-rights circles but still central to the debate: if a right requires government permission in advance, mandatory training, certified instructors, fees, and the risk of revocation, then the state has moved beyond safety regulation and into gatekeeping.
Supporters of such bills often frame them as public-safety measures designed to make sure gun owners understand safe handling and legal responsibilities. William’s response is that even if training is valuable, making it a legal condition for exercising a right changes the constitutional relationship between the citizen and the government.
Questions About Cost And What Comes Next
William also raised a procedural question about why the amendments were enough to move SB948 out of appropriations.
He said the committee’s job is to consider the financial impact of legislation, and he did not see anything in the amendments that clearly reduced the state’s costs in a major way. If the bill still requires new systems, oversight, curriculum approval, and administration, he questioned why it was first held as costly and then advanced after the changes.
That part of the process, he said, does not make sense to him. He described the entire measure as a mess and said the next step is watching what happens on the Senate floor.
William urged California gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to contact their state legislators and oppose the bill, arguing that supporters of the measure are already making their voices heard. His warning was that silence from gun owners would only make it easier for lawmakers to move SB948 forward.
The amendments may make the bill easier for some lawmakers to defend, especially because the training time was reduced and new residents were given more time to comply. But based on William’s reading, the political fight is not really over eight hours versus four hours or 60 days versus 180 days.
The deeper fight is over whether California can keep expanding the firearm safety certificate into something closer to a permit-to-purchase system, and whether courts or lawmakers will accept that kind of requirement as a condition of firearm ownership.
For William, the answer is clear: even after the changes, he said SB948 still treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right, and that is why he believes the bill remains one of California’s most serious gun-rights battles of 2026.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa is our dedicated Second Amendment news writer and also focuses on homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Lisa aims to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.
