Governor Gavin Newsom has signed AB 1078, a sprawling package that touches concealed-carry licensing, restraining-order disqualifiers, and a revived “guns-per-month” cap in a single sweep.
On CRPA TV, host Kevin Small and CRPA President Chuck Michel walked through what’s in the bill, what it means on the ground, and where they expect the legal fights to start the moment ink dries.
Their breakdown is part statutory tour, part field guide for what happens next in the courts – because there will be a “next.”
Three Laws in One: Why AB 1078 Is Different
As Kevin Small framed it, a lot of bills pick one target. AB 1078 goes after three.
First, it ratchets up obstacles for CCW applicants and renewals, weaving in new reasons for denial and revocation.
Second, it folds restraining-order language into licensing decisions, with carve-outs that attempt to nod at due-process concerns but leave huge discretion to local issuers.
Third, it revives rationing – moving from the old one-gun-per-30-days rule to three guns per month – a line in the sand that’s already been litigated in California, just under a different number.
That combination is why Small describes AB 1078 as “deserving its own video.” It’s also why this fight won’t be settled in one case. It’s going to be litigated piece by piece.
The CCW Maze Gets New Walls
Small reads the CCW section aloud like a cop reciting Miranda – tight and technical. He’s not exaggerating; the language is dense.
According to Michel, the bill adds more reasons a licensing authority can deny or revoke a permit: certain out-of-state convictions, contempt of court, “unlawful user of or addicted to” controlled substances, and a broad sweep of restraining and protective orders.
It also commands agencies to feed names into federal indices and evaluate whether applicants are “reasonably likely” to be a danger.
Michel’s take? It’s a mixed bag at best.
On the positive side, he notes, the Legislature is trying to tiptoe along the Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision, which warned against permanent disarmament based on mere accusations.
AB 1078 acknowledges that applicants who never got notice or a hearing shouldn’t be automatically barred.
But the bill also expands red tape and invites inconsistent enforcement. Michel warns that the new standards create “a whole bunch more ways” for issuing authorities to abuse their discretion – especially in jurisdictions with a history of slow-walking or stonewalling permits.
I think that’s the story behind the story. Post-Bruen, some states swapped outright “no issue” with “death by paperwork.” AB 1078 continues that trend. The risk isn’t just denial – it’s delay, and delay is denial by another name when the right is time-sensitive and the process is subjective.
Restraining Orders, Due Process, and a 10-Year Dragnet
Small zeroes in on what will become one of the most contentious segments: restraining orders. Do they automatically nuke CCW eligibility? AB 1078 says “yes” – but then adds exceptions if you were never notified or given a chance to be heard.
Michel calls restraining orders a longstanding due-process problem, especially in messy neighbor disputes or divorce tactics where temporary orders can be weaponized. He cites real cases where a minor camera dispute sparked a temporary order – and that order triggered a firearms prohibition.
Even with AB 1078’s carve-outs, Michel expects heavy litigation. He highlights the bill’s ten-year lookback – a breathtaking reach that, in his words, “can’t stand.”
In practice, the new standards deputize local agencies to become investigators of ancient disputes and paper slipups, while daring citizens to prove a negative: that they didn’t “knowingly” omit some long-ago infraction.
My opinion? If California wants to incorporate restraining orders, the only legitimate route is strict, rapid due process with a path to swift correction when orders are dismissed.
Ten years is overbroad and punitive. It sweeps in stale, settled, and sometimes abused orders that never had a proper evidentiary hearing in the first place.
Non-Resident CCWs and the “Primary Location” Puzzle
Small shifts to an under-reported but significant piece: out-of-state applicants.
After CRPA’s injunction in CRPA v. LASD, California must now offer a path for non-residents to obtain a CCW. AB 1078 codifies that opening, while adding hurdles like an oath that the jurisdiction is the applicant’s primary California destination, proof of live-fire qualification for each listed gun, and even virtual psych assessments.
Michel sees irony: in some respects, the non-resident process may become easier than the in-state process (e.g., allowing remote psychological screenings). He argues California should apply the same efficiency tools – like virtual assessments – to residents as well, rather than doubling down on delays and costs.
There’s also real ambiguity. What counts as “primary location” in a state where a single road trip might include Riverside, Disneyland, and the Bay Area? Michel predicts applicants will shop jurisdictions with faster processing and then truthfully attest to their primary time spent there.
The Legislature can try to narrow that later, but for now it’s a foggy standard begging for either rulemaking or litigation.
From a policy standpoint, this is classic California: compelled by a court to open a door, the state adds complex qualifiers. Whether those qualifiers are “guardrails” or tripwires will be decided by the first round of non-resident denials – and the lawsuits that follow.
The Return of Rationing: “Three Guns a Month”
The loudest headline might be the three-guns-per-month cap slated for April 1, 2026. Small calls out the drafting oddity – the bill says “increase” to three, even though under Nguyen v. Bonta the one-gun cap has already been struck down.
Michel sees this for what it is: cat-and-mouse with a new number. Nguyen didn’t say “one is bad, three is fine.” It said rationing purchases violates the Second Amendment under the modern test. Changing the numerator doesn’t fix the constitutional denominator.
Expect a fast challenge here. Michel says the theory is straightforward: three-per-month is still rationing. The only question is tactical – file quickly for an injunction and risk legislative mooting games, or build the case for a clean merits win with fee recovery. Either way, he’s confident it goes down.
I’ll go further: the state’s own logic undermines the cap. If background checks, waiting periods, and serialized sales are the safeguards, quantity caps function only as a stigma – treating normal buyers like traffickers without evidence.
That’s not history and tradition, and it’s not narrow tailoring. It’s rationing dressed as safety.
The Bigger Litigation Strategy – and Why It Matters
Small asks the practical question: do you attack a mega-bill as a whole, or pull it apart? Michel explains the smarter play: challenge the amended code sections one by one. AB 1078 is the wrapper; the courts care about the guts – the specific prohibitions and procedures.
Beyond 1078, Michel says to watch two more fronts. First, the state’s barrel background check plan – a cousin of the ammo background check CRPA already beat once. Second, the Supreme Court’s sensitive-places docket and related cases that could tighten lower courts’ leeway to dodge Bruen.
Here’s the larger point Kevin Small and Chuck Michel return to: California continues to layer complexity onto post-Bruen carry and purchase rights.
Some layers are cosmetic fixes after CRPA wins; others are fresh barriers aimed at slowing lawful conduct. The response has to be persistent, targeted litigation—and, frankly, voter accountability for lawmakers who keep trying to ration a constitutional right.
What Californians Should Expect Right Now
If you’re a CCW holder or applicant, expect more forms, more disclosures, and more subjective reviews, especially around restraining orders and alleged controlled-substance use.
If you’re an out-of-state visitor seeking a California CCW, expect to swear to a primary location, complete live-fire quals for each listed gun, and possibly take a virtual psych assessment – an oddly modern convenience compared with in-state hurdles.
If you buy multiple firearms in a month, circle April 1, 2026 on your calendar – and expect AB 1078’s cap to be challenged before it ever binds you. Given Nguyen, the state’s rationing gambit is skating on thin constitutional ice.
And if you’re watching the courts, keep an eye on CRPA’s next filings. As Michel told Small, this is an era of fine-grain litigation – less about big symbolic bans and more about the death-by-a-thousand-procedures that Bruen explicitly warned against.
Kevin Small provides the throughline; Chuck Michel supplies the litigation map. Together, they make one thing clear: AB 1078 is not just another bill – it’s a three-front campaign that will be fought in sheriff’s offices, courtrooms, and public opinion.
My view is simple. If the state believes it can justify restrictions, it should write clear, narrow, and constitutional rules, not sprawl. AB 1078 does the opposite. That’s why the fight isn’t over – it’s just properly joined.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.