On April 1, 2025, California lawmakers amended Assembly Bill 1078, a proposal that would change the state’s monthly gun purchase law. According to the bill text, the current law restricts gun buyers to just one firearm every 30 days. But AB 1078 proposes a new ceiling: three firearms per month. That’s three times the current limit, but don’t celebrate yet – critics argue this is a calculated move rather than a loosening of restrictions. The bill is still working its way through the California Assembly and is now sitting in the Appropriations Committee, where financial implications will be reviewed before it possibly heads to a floor vote.
The NRA-ILA’s Take: A Tactical Move
The NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) sees this bill not as a relaxation of restrictions, but as a workaround to avoid court interference. Their April 8 report noted that AB 1078 appears designed to sidestep a U.S. District Court ruling that previously blocked California’s one-gun-a-month law as unconstitutional. That court decision was based on the case Nguyen v. Bonta. The bill doesn’t just change the limit – it also includes a mechanism to revert the rule back to one firearm per month if the courts eventually side with the state on appeal. To the NRA, this is California trying to outmaneuver the judiciary by creating a “temporary” law that suits their goals.
Copper Jacket TV Exposes the Strategy
Gun rights YouTube channel Copper Jacket TV, hosted by William, dove into this issue in a detailed video. According to the video, the bill is more than it seems. William claims this is a “shady” workaround meant to undermine pending court cases like Nguyen v. Bonta and *BNL Productions v. Newsom. He explains that by changing the purchase limit from one to three, California legislators are making it harder for courts to rule on the original law. If the law changes mid-case, the court might dismiss the challenge as moot. Then, if the state wins, they can legally slide the limit right back down to one.
A Legal Shell Game?
What makes this bill especially strange is that it acknowledges the Nguyen v. Bonta injunction in its own text. The bill literally states that the law preventing people from buying more than one gun per month is under federal injunction – but then proceeds to propose its own version anyway. William from Copper Jacket TV points out that this strategy could trick the courts into thinking the original law doesn’t need review. If that happens, and the state wins on appeal, AB 1078 would automatically reset the cap to one per month within 30 days of the court’s mandate. It’s a clever game of legal sleight of hand.
What the Bill Actually Says
According to the official bill text, AB 1078 would allow gun buyers to apply for up to three firearms within any 30-day period. It also prohibits gun dealers from delivering any firearm if the buyer already has applications on file that would bring them over the three-gun limit. The Department of Justice would track these purchases and notify dealers when a customer exceeds the cap. A key part of the bill also requires licensed gun dealers to update their firearm safety warning signage to reflect the new three-gun rule.
Automatic Reversion Built Into the Law
But here’s the kicker: if the state wins on appeal in Nguyen v. Bonta, the law flips. Within 30 days of a mandate reversing the injunction, the bill would require the California Attorney General to notify every licensed gun dealer in the state. The rule would then revert to just one gun per month, erasing the temporary bump to three. It’s like building a trapdoor into the law, letting lawmakers reset it at will depending on how the courts rule.
A Pattern of Gun Control Expansion
The NRA-ILA also listed AB 1078 among several other gun control bills being fast-tracked through the legislature. These include new training mandates (AB 1187), pistol restrictions (AB 1127), and permit-to-purchase requirements. California seems to be launching a coordinated campaign to clamp down on gun ownership across multiple fronts, not just this one bill. Critics argue that the cumulative effect of all these bills is to create a regulatory maze that makes exercising gun rights nearly impossible.
A Pushback Against the Courts
California’s legislature appears to be testing the limits of judicial patience. As William from Copper Jacket TV explains, the state isn’t just passing laws – they’re playing chess with the courts. By temporarily increasing the gun limit, then including a “rollback” clause, they may hope to avoid a strong judicial precedent that blocks one-gun-a-month laws outright. If the courts dismiss the pending lawsuit as irrelevant, the state can quietly snap back to the original restriction. It’s a bold move – and a controversial one.
An Intentional Bill
What’s especially interesting here is how intentional this bill is. It’s not just about setting a new limit – it’s about manipulating timing, optics, and outcomes. This isn’t something that just happened by accident. Lawmakers wrote the bill with direct references to Nguyen v. Bonta, and they timed it in a way that could potentially influence the case’s trajectory. If nothing else, it shows how strategic legislation can be used to shield vulnerable laws from deeper legal review. That kind of political maneuvering deserves attention, whether you agree with the policy or not.
A Lesson in Legislative Engineering
Bills like AB 1078 show how laws can be designed with escape hatches built right into them. It’s not just about policy – it’s about chess. If you want to pass something controversial, sometimes you pass a watered-down version while the courts are looking. Then, if you win the appeal, the real restrictions come back in through a trapdoor. It’s a brilliant – if troubling – example of how some lawmakers treat legislation as a workaround tool rather than a transparent debate.
California’s Broader Agenda
With a wave of other gun bills moving through committees, AB 1078 is just one piece of a larger puzzle. As noted by the NRA-ILA, laws targeting semi-auto pistols, training requirements, and CCW restrictions are all in motion. Critics like Copper Jacket TV argue that these bills don’t enhance public safety – they just pile on bureaucratic red tape. In this environment, AB 1078’s real purpose becomes clearer: it’s less about allowing three guns and more about resetting the stage for the one-gun policy that the courts already questioned.
A Legal Pressure Valve
This bill may look like a compromise – three guns per month instead of one – but when you read between the lines, it’s more of a legal pressure valve than a policy shift. All three sources – the official bill text, the NRA-ILA report, and the Copper Jacket TV analysis – point to the same idea: this is less about gun safety and more about staying one step ahead of the courts. Whether you’re for or against gun restrictions, AB 1078 offers a revealing look at how laws can be written not just to enforce, but to evade. Watch this one closely – it could set a precedent for how lawmakers dodge judicial rulings in the future.
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.