How States Are Disarming Citizens Despite Supreme Court Rulings

Across the country, a new wave of state legislation is quietly reshaping gun ownership. Rather than directly banning firearms, states like Colorado, Washington, and California are introducing laws that make purchasing and possessing certain firearms so complex, costly, and time-consuming that many citizens may simply give up. 

These “permit-to-purchase” laws are being framed as safety measures, but critics say they’re a backdoor method to sidestep the Second Amendment and ignore Supreme Court rulings like New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. As William Kirk of Washington Gun Law warns, this could be the most effective civilian disarmament method yet.

Colorado SB3: A Ban That Pretends Not To Be One

In Colorado, Senate Bill 3 (SB25-003) prohibits the sale, purchase, or transfer of “specified semiautomatic firearms,” unless the buyer completes a certified safety course and holds a valid firearms course card issued by a sheriff. This includes many semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, and even handguns with detachable magazines. 

The bill also bans large-capacity magazines and classifies rapid-fire devices as dangerous weapons. According to the official SB3 bill summary, violators face misdemeanors and even felonies for repeat offenses. William Kirk calls this a “permission slip from government” that gives law enforcement room to arbitrarily deny access, even if all paperwork is technically in order.

Washington HB1163: A Legal Maze of Delays

In Washington State, House Bill 1163 ramps up restrictions by requiring a valid permit to purchase any firearm. As outlined in the Washington legislative summary, this permit cannot be granted without proof of certified training. 

It also introduces new background check procedures that include scanning for outstanding warrants and pending court actions. William Kirk points out a serious catch in Washington Gun Law’s coverage: new gun owners can’t even take the mandatory training without already owning a gun – yet state law often prevents borrowing one. This creates what Kirk calls an “impenetrable barrier” to first-time buyers, especially those in urgent need of protection.

California AB1187: Even Moving with a Gun Requires Permission

California is taking it a step further. Under Assembly Bill 1187, as reported in the official California bill text, anyone bringing a gun into the state must obtain a valid firearm safety certificate and submit documentation to the Department of Justice. Starting in 2027, that certificate requires completion of an 8-hour training course including live-fire exercises. 

The law even outlines procedures for the Department of Motor Vehicles to notify people applying for driver’s licenses about these gun regulations. As William Kirk notes, even travelers from out of state would be subject to California’s rules before they could legally carry or transport a firearm inside state lines.

Training Requirements: A Hidden Wall

One of the biggest hurdles in all three states is mandatory training. Washington’s HB1163 and California’s AB1187 both require live-fire shooting sessions. But as Kirk emphasizes, first-time buyers often don’t own a firearm yet. 

And because many state laws restrict lending or transferring firearms, it’s difficult – sometimes impossible – to borrow one for training. Without a legal way to handle a gun before training, the requirement becomes a dead end. Kirk warns that the laws are setting people up for failure, especially women in abusive situations who need protection immediately.

Legislation Framed as “Safety,” But Critics See Control

Supporters of these laws claim they’re about responsible ownership and suicide prevention. But opponents argue that these laws are designed to create so many hoops that the average person gives up before they ever get to exercise their rights. In his video, William Kirk makes a strong comparison: what if you had to take an 8-hour government-approved course to exercise your freedom of speech or religion? The very idea sounds ridiculous – until you substitute “buy a gun” into the same sentence. That’s what makes these permit-to-purchase laws so controversial.

The Bruen Footnote That Might Undermine the Constitution

All of this, according to Kirk, might still hold up in court – thanks to Footnote 9 in the Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling. That footnote allows for “shall-issue” permit systems, provided the criteria are objective and obtainable. This means that if a state can argue its licensing system is neutral and applies to everyone equally, it might survive a legal challenge. The problem, as Kirk explains, is that states are using that footnote like a loophole – ratcheting up the difficulty year after year until lawful gun ownership becomes an unreachable goal for most citizens.

Why These Laws Target the Most Vulnerable

In real life, these laws disproportionately impact the people who need protection the most. As Kirk noted, battered women are among those who suffer first. While restraining orders and court protections can take time to enforce – or be ignored entirely by dangerous individuals – these women may need a firearm immediately to protect themselves. Instead, laws like HB1163 and SB3 create delays that could last weeks or even months. In Kirk’s words, these bills “won’t save lives. They’ll cost lives.”

Gun Control Without the Words “Gun Ban”

What makes these laws especially frustrating to gun rights advocates is that they don’t technically ban guns outright. Instead, they create a maze of regulations, permits, courses, and fees. And as Kirk says, “year by year, legislators will slowly ratchet up the requirements.” A law that starts with an 8-hour course might eventually require 20. A $50 permit fee could turn into $500. And if the Supreme Court refuses to intervene, states could essentially outlaw firearms without ever saying the word “ban.”

Backdoor Bans in Practice, If Not in Name

What’s unfolding in California, Washington, and Colorado isn’t just policy – it’s a test of strategy. Can the right to keep and bear arms be erased without technically violating it? Can constitutional rights be “priced out” or buried under red tape? That’s what’s at stake, and that’s why many legal experts and advocates are sounding the alarm. As outlined in Washington Gun Law’s breakdown, the risk isn’t just in these bills – it’s in the slow but steady normalization of this strategy across other states.

A Future of Conditional Rights

There’s something chilling about rights that come with a license. The Second Amendment doesn’t say, “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed – unless you pass a live-fire course approved by your local sheriff.” But that’s where we’re heading. These laws are being packaged as safety measures, but make no mistake – they set a precedent. If the government can license your right to self-defense, what’s to stop it from licensing your right to speak, to vote, or to worship?

This Isn’t Just About Guns Anymore

What’s so fascinating – and troubling – about this trend is that it shows how flexible laws can be when people are determined to reshape them. Lawmakers aren’t calling for mass confiscation. They’re not banning all guns. They’re just making it a process. A very long, difficult, expensive, and slow process. It’s brilliant in a cold, strategic way. And it’s happening in real time, right now, under the radar of most Americans who still think “it can’t happen here.”

A Warning Wrapped in Paperwork

Colorado’s SB3, Washington’s HB1163, and California’s AB1187 are more than just state bills. They’re blueprints for a new kind of gun control – one that uses bureaucracy instead of brute force. As William Kirk and others have pointed out, these laws can functionally disarm citizens without ever breaking a clear constitutional rule. They delay. They confuse. They exhaust. And unless courts or voters push back, they might just succeed – not by force, but by friction.