California’s Latest Gun Laws Face an Unexpected Twist

California’s latest slate of gun bills isn’t just controversial – it’s colliding with a procedural twist that could change everything without a single pen stroke. In his update, William of Copper Jacket TV said three major measures, AB 1127, AB 1078, and SB 74, cleared the legislature and are sitting with Governor Gavin Newsom, prompting speculation about whether he’ll sign them at all. On CRPA TV, host Kevin Small and legislative director Rick Travis added a fourth bill, AB 1263, and explained a little-known path in state law: these bills can become law even if Newsom never signs them. That’s the unexpected twist.

What’s Actually In The Bills?

The core package, as summarized by William, includes AB 1127 (the so-called “Glock ban”), AB 1078 (reviving a “three guns per month” cap and tightening CCW rules), and SB 74 (mandatory background checks and registration for barrels). Kevin Small and Rick Travis expanded the list: AB 1263 (further restrictions on “ghost guns” and 3D-printed parts) and SB 704 (a barrels-registration measure that, in their discussion, is functionally the bill William described as SB 74). Whether you follow William’s bill numbering or CRPA’s, the trend line is the same: expand regulation to purchases, parts, carry, and components.

The So-Called “Glock Ban” Explained

William’s walkthrough of AB 1127 is blunt: the bill would effectively remove an entire brand and category of handguns from California’s roster, with standard carve-outs for law enforcement. He notes a compressed implementation timeline – “less than a year,” in his words – which, if accurate, would push many popular models out of reach on a tight schedule. His broader point isn’t subtle either: people who disregard the law won’t be moved by roster tweaks, but law-abiding buyers will. I think that political reality is why this bill draws so much heat – it feels targeted at the only people who comply.

Back To Rationing: Three Guns A Month

AB 1078 is a two-parter. Kevin and Rick say it tightens CCW rules while also reviving California’s “three guns a month” limit. William argues that rationing purchases runs headlong into recent Ninth Circuit thinking and calls it “completely unconstitutional.” (That’s his characterization, not a court ruling on this specific bill.) Whatever your view, it’s a deliberate return to a quantity cap that treats lawful buyers like contraband traffickers. My take: in a post-Bruen legal landscape, quantity bans are going to get picked apart in court – especially if the state can’t tie them to a historical analogue.

Serial Numbers For Barrels And The 3D-Parts Dragnet

Both shows flag a first-in-the-nation push on parts. William says SB 74 targets barrels with background checks and registration, while Rick frames SB 704 as the barrels bill that would require registration upon purchase or transfer. AB 1263, per Kevin and Rick, widens “ghost gun” restrictions and aims at 3D-printed components. Supporters will call this a common-sense modernization; critics will call it a registry of parts that were never firearms in the first place. My read: sweeping up inert components invites overbreadth challenges – and won’t slow anyone already operating outside the law.

The Quietest Way To Sign A Law

The most important thing Rick Travis explained on CRPA TV is procedural, not ideological: California doesn’t require a governor’s signature for a bill to become law. As he put it, once a bill is “enrolled” and presented, a 12-calendar-day clock starts. Three things can happen in that window: the governor signs (it’s chaptered and takes effect on the date specified), vetoes (it dies unless overridden), or does nothing – what California calls “allow without signature.” That third option isn’t a pocket veto; it’s the opposite. After 12 days of inaction, the bill becomes law anyway.

Two Clocks, Same Outcome

William described a longer cadence – “30 days” keyed to delivery dates, followed by “about 12 days” if nothing happens. Rick emphasized a straight 12-day, calendar-day window from enrollment. However you square those calendars, both sources converge on the same practical takeaway: the window is short, and “do nothing” is a real strategy that still produces law. My opinion: that’s not a loophole; it’s a feature. It gives a governor maximum political flexibility to claim moderation while delivering the outcome allied advocacy groups want.

Optics Over Substance

Kevin Small pressed the politics of it: a governor eyeing national office often drifts toward the center. Rick Travis took it further, saying Newsom could keep anti-gun groups happy by letting bills become law while telling a national audience, “I didn’t sign those.” Rick also said the governor was “intimately involved” in getting these measures written and moved. The optics are obvious – signal centrism while avoiding a veto that would anger core allies. I can’t see inside the governor’s mind, but as a tactic for 2028 positioning, the “allow without signature” path checks every box.

When Silence Is Consent

Rick’s phrase stuck with me: omission can be its own vote. If a governor believes a bill is unconstitutional or unwise, the veto is the only honest way to say so. Doing nothing is saying yes, just in a lower font size. William anticipates a big, orchestrated signing ceremony – perhaps bundling multiple bills before the barrels deadline – but also acknowledges that all three could simply “become law anyway.” Whether the finale is a press conference or a calendar alert, the essence doesn’t change: these policies advance unless someone in power actively stops them.

Expect Courtrooms To Get Busy

William says advocacy groups are already lining up lawsuits “almost immediately.” Kevin framed it as a shift from legislation to litigation once the ink – or non-ink – dries. I agree that’s where the fight heads next. In the Bruen era, the state must justify modern restrictions by pointing to a historical tradition of similar regulations. Purchase rationing, brand-by-brand roster bans, and serializing non-firearm parts will all face that test. I’m not predicting outcomes, but the state will need more than talking points about “common sense.” Courts are asking for history – and specificity.

The Prop 50 Subplot

CRPA’s segment repeatedly tied these bills to a broader ballot fight: Prop 50 and legislative control of redistricting. Rick urged a “No on 50,” warning it would make it “unbearably hard” to resist future waves of gun restrictions by tilting the political map. Kevin said their coalition will be live on election night, tracking results and discussing next-year litigation and legislation. Love or hate that message, it’s consistent: procedural terrain – who draws lines, who counts votes, who decides timelines – often determines the substance. If you care about policy, you can’t skip the process.

What To Watch Next

William laid out likely timelines tied to when each bill hit the governor’s desk, predicting that California might bundle them for a single headline, complete with “red shirts” from national groups, or let them quietly ripen into law. Rick gave the cleaner rule: 12 calendar days from enrollment for sign, veto, or allow without signature. 

Either way, this isn’t a months-long wait. If you live in California, now’s the time to read the text, understand the deadlines, and decide where you stand – at the ballot box on Prop 50, and in public comment, membership, or litigation support if that’s your lane. My take: whatever happens with the signature line, these bills will not be the last word. The courts – and voters – will have plenty to say about what comes next.

UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped

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.