On a recent episode of Gun Owners Radio, host Michael Schwartz and co-hosts Alisha Curtin and Dakota Adelphia say AB 1078 is more than a headline about “three guns a month.”
According to their breakdown, the new law caps firearm purchases at three per 30-day period and layers in fresh rules for CCW licensing – especially for out-of-state applicants and renewals.
Adelphia notes the bill was amended in September and touches “a significant amount” of California gun law. She says the purchase cap begins April 1, 2026, putting a hard monthly limit on all buyers.
The show explains why the number matters. California’s earlier one-gun-a-month restriction was struck in court, they say, and Schwartz argues a “three-per-month” cap is the same creature with a new outfit.
Schwartz puts it plainly: the old rule wasn’t unconstitutional because it was one; it was unconstitutional because it was a limit. Swap in a different number, he says, and the legal flaw remains.
Why They Believe It’s Unconstitutional
The panel’s core claim is simple. A hard cap on lawful purchases – one gun, three guns, or any number – acts as a prior restraint on a constitutional right.
Schwartz calls the “three” figure arbitrary. If the state can pick three today, it can pick two or one tomorrow, or add waiting periods to drag a right into next year.
Adelphia predicts the law will be challenged quickly and “get struck down.” But she warns that lawsuits cost money, take time, and depend on drawing fair judges.
That, the hosts say, is the real strategy in Sacramento. Pass something dressed as “safety,” knowing the state will lose later, but impose red tape now so gun owners pay – with cash, time, and uncertainty – until a court steps in.
“Three a Month” Isn’t the Only Fight Hidden Inside
The hosts say AB 1078 goes well beyond the purchase cap. It revises CCW eligibility rules for non-residents, tweaks live-fire training expectations, and adds new disqualifiers that can knock out an otherwise lawful applicant.
Adelphia flags a rule that punishes paperwork mistakes, like failing to report a stolen firearm properly, by blocking CCW eligibility even if you’re not a prohibited person. Schwartz calls that another lawsuit waiting to happen.
Curtin points to a tangle with last year’s SB 2 litigation and the Ninth Circuit’s interim guidance on “sensitive places.”
She says the Ninth Circuit indicated carry cannot be broadly banned in locations like public transportation, tribal land, healthcare facilities, banks, movie theaters, churches, and permitted public gatherings; yet AB 1078 attempts to re-draw those lines again.
The result, the panel argues, is confusion for ordinary people who want to follow the law. If you need to be a paralegal to know where you can carry today, then the rule isn’t guiding behavior – it’s manufacturing errors.
The Psychological Screen: From Rare to Routine?
The most controversial piece, according to Curtin, is a push toward psychological evaluation for CCW applicants. Some counties already experiment with a “PSI-style” test, she says, and AB 1078 signals a broader statewide appetite for it.
Schwartz frames it as flipping the presumption. Instead of the state proving you’re unfit, the government demands you prove you’re not dangerous before you can exercise a right.
Curtin describes the PSI as a personality instrument, not a clinician’s examination of mental illness or risk of violence.
If you’re introverted, prefer quiet time, or dislike crowds, she says, the tool can misread normal traits as red flags.
Adelphia adds that predicting rare violent acts by short screening is notoriously unreliable, even for seasoned professionals with a long therapeutic history. Turning that uncertainty into a gate for CCW, in their view, is “a complete mess.”
Schwartz goes further and says the Constitution won’t tolerate a right limited to approved personalities. He expects litigation on this front as well.
Why the Hosts Think Courts Will Knock It Down
Schwartz returns to first principles. If courts already rejected one-gun-a-month, a cosmetic change to three won’t save the policy.
He stresses that prior rulings didn’t quibble over the exact number. They rejected the idea that the state can ration a right by calendar.
Adelphia mentions an earlier clause that would have tried to insulate the new cap from whatever happens in the old case – legislative belt-and-suspenders language.
She notes the Senate amendments removed that attempt, which he sees as a small positive in a bad bill.
Curtin ties the strategy to SB 2 fights over sensitive places and the Ninth Circuit’s interim lines.
She says AB 1078 reads like an effort to circumvent what the court already signaled, dropping new text to keep carriers guessing and lawyers busy.
In their collective view, AB 1078 is litigation bait. It dares gun owners to sue by piling on rules the state expects to lose eventually.
The Number Isn’t the Problem – The Rationing Is
This is where their argument lands for me. If the state can ration a right by quota, the right becomes a monthly allowance, not a shield you carry every day.
The “three” cap sounds moderate. But moderation is in the ear of the beholder, and a moderate cap can be tightened when public pressure spikes or politics shift.
Rights are most secure when rules are clear, narrow, and historically grounded.
AB 1078, as described by Schwartz, Curtin, and Adelphia, does the opposite: it adds ambiguity, administrative traps, and personality tests with murky standards and high error rates.
If courts require text and history – as modern Second Amendment doctrine does – then lawmakers must justify rationing with more than “trust us.” The state needs genuine historical analogues, not policy hunches dressed up as screening.
Laws that change week to week and vary county by county invite accidental crime. That erodes the respect people have for the system and makes enforcement look arbitrary.
The hosts’ point about ordinary citizens being turned into unwitting violators is not a small thing. If the only way to carry legally is to keep a casebook in your glove box, the law isn’t regulating; it’s tripping you.
Psych screens spike that risk. A one-size-fits-all personality inventory will confuse quiet or private people with dangerous ones, while those determined to do harm may mask their answers with ease.
We should be skeptical of tools that feel scientific but fail when scaled and rushed. A “check the box” exam becomes a talisman, not a safety net.
A Challenge is Expected
Adelphia says the three-gun cap becomes operative April 1, 2026, unless a court enjoins it.
Given prior rulings, she expects a challenge and likely a freeze while litigation plays out.
Schwartz warns the path isn’t straight. There may be bad rulings before there are good ones, and the community will need to fund lawsuits and stay engaged.
Curtin anticipates more confusion around “sensitive places” as AB 1078 jostles with the SB 2 map and the Ninth Circuit’s interim guidance. She urges listeners to watch for updates and be cautious until new cases settle the dust.
The trio’s bottom line is steady. AB 1078 repackages rejected ideas, bets on delay, and invites courts to say “no” again.
To summarize, according to the hosts, the “three guns a month” limit in AB 1078 is the same unconstitutional rationing courts rejected when the number was one. The cap is set to begin April 1, 2026, and almost certainly faces a court challenge and a push for an injunction.
The bill also tries to re-draw carry maps despite the Ninth Circuit’s guidance, and it nudges California toward psychological screens that look more like personality tests than reliable risk tools.
All three hosts argue the law is designed to bury gun owners in red tape until a judge stops it.
My view lines up with theirs on the central point. If the government may ration a right by the month and filter CCW through subjective screens, then the state controls the choke points of a liberty it’s supposed to protect – and that is exactly what courts are there to correct.
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.
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.