California lawmakers are once again pushing forward on controversial gun control legislation. Assembly Bill 1078, known informally as the “Three Guns Per Month” bill, recently cleared committee with minimal resistance, as reported by Copper Jacket TV host William. The bill would limit law-abiding citizens to purchasing no more than three firearms in any 30-day period – an increase from the current “one-gun-a-month” restriction that was temporarily struck down by a federal court but remains under appeal.
The Legal Backdrop: Nguyen v. Bonta
This proposal is a direct response to a 2023 district court ruling in Nguyen v. Bonta, which declared California’s one-gun-per-month law unconstitutional. According to William’s coverage on Copper Jacket TV, the state “didn’t wait for the appeal to be resolved.” Instead, lawmakers are attempting to reframe the restriction by raising the limit from one to three guns, hoping to slide through a different version of the same regulation while the courts deliberate.
Committee Approval Sparks Concern
William described AB 1078 as “flying through at lightning speed,” with its most recent move sending it from committee to the Assembly Appropriations Committee with barely any opposition. “It’s like they were voting on bottled water,” he said, stunned by how casually lawmakers treated a bill that restricts a constitutional right. Only a few Assembly Members, including Alanis and Lackey, voted against it.
Gun Rights Groups Speak Out
Sam Paredes from Gun Owners of California (GOC) spoke during the hearing and directly challenged the bill’s constitutionality. He cited the Bruen Supreme Court decision, arguing that there is “no historical tradition” in American law that limits how many firearms someone can purchase. “Any limit,” Paredes said, “is a violation of the Constitution.”
His remarks were pointed and clear: this bill is about punishing lawful citizens, not stopping crime. “There’s not a single criminal who’s going to comply with these provisions,” he warned.
A Stunning Admission From the Bill’s Author
In a moment that left viewers and attendees speechless, the bill’s author, Marc Berman, responded to Paredes’ criticism by admitting, essentially, that historical analogues don’t matter. In video footage shared by William on Copper Jacket TV, Berman said: “I appreciate the comment about causation versus correlation – I don’t care.”
That blunt response confirmed what critics have suspected for years: that many of California’s gun control bills are ideologically driven and not grounded in data, tradition, or effectiveness.
A Pivot From “One” to “Three”
The text of AB 1078 attempts to distinguish itself from the original law struck down in Nguyen v. Bonta by increasing the allowed number of firearms from one to three per month. However, as Paredes argued, the number itself is irrelevant. “Whether it’s one, three, or five, it’s still a cap on a right,” he said. The bill is a workaround, not a new idea, and opponents are calling it a cynical strategy to skirt judicial scrutiny.
More Than Just Purchases – Other Big Changes in AB 1078
AB 1078 also includes multiple revisions to California’s existing concealed carry laws. It expands prohibitions on licensing to individuals with past court orders, even if they were out-of-state and never resulted in a conviction. It increases background check requirements, tightens psychological screening for non-residents, and mandates more detailed disclosure by applicants.
The bill even allows remote psychological evaluations for out-of-state applicants, a nod to virtual medicine but also a potential weak point in licensing consistency. It’s a sweeping law dressed in the camouflage of a simple “purchase limit” update.
They’re Saying the Quiet Part Out Loud
“This is what gun control has always been about,” said William from Copper Jacket TV. “It’s not about safety or statistics – it’s about control.” His commentary focused heavily on the casual tone used by lawmakers during the committee hearing. “They don’t even flinch when stripping away rights,” he added, calling it “a stunning display of arrogance.”
He warned viewers that unless Californians call their legislators and oppose AB 1078, it could pass through the full Assembly just as quickly as it flew through committee.
California Rifle & Pistol Association Also Raises Alarm
Rick Travis, Legislative Director for the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), also testified against AB 1078. Like Paredes, Travis emphasized that the bill violates the standards set in Bruen, and that there is no American legal tradition that justifies such restrictions.
Despite the passionate arguments, however, committee members appeared unmoved, passing the bill without addressing the constitutional concerns raised.
Rights Don’t Have Quantity Limits
Let’s be clear – no other constitutional right comes with a quota. Imagine being told you can only buy three books a month, or attend church no more than three times in 30 days. That’s exactly what’s happening here, except the right under fire is the Second Amendment. The fact that lawmakers openly admit they don’t care about data or historical precedent is chilling. It’s no longer about safety – it’s about political power.
What Happens If the Court Reverses Nguyen?
The text of AB 1078 includes a clause that automatically reverts the limit from three guns back to one if a federal appellate court reverses the Nguyen decision. If that happens, the law gives the California Attorney General 30 days to notify all firearms dealers across the state.
That clause alone reveals the bill’s motive: not to follow the courts, but to stay one step ahead of them. It’s legal cat-and-mouse, and the state seems determined to win, no matter how it impacts law-abiding gun owners.
The Battle Isn’t Over Yet
AB 1078 still has several steps to go before becoming law, including passage by the full Assembly and the State Senate, followed by the governor’s signature. But if the current momentum continues, the bill could reach Governor Newsom’s desk quickly. Groups like Gun Owners of California, CRPA, and Copper Jacket TV are urging people to call their lawmakers and oppose the measure immediately.
This isn’t just about California. If AB 1078 becomes law, it could set a precedent that other states may try to copy. That’s why Second Amendment advocates across the country are watching closely – and why this bill, despite its quiet name, could have national consequences.
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.