Why It Matters: Legislation seeking to restrict the Second Amendment is often eventually used as a vector of attack for hunting-related issues, just as restrictions on hunting are often used as a vector of attack against Second Amendment rights. Our issues are fundamentally intertwined given that firearms of every kind are routinely used in hunting, and many hunters are also avid recreational shooters. Therefore, it is important to be aware of these issues as they arise so you can have a full understanding of what may likely happen in the future and how it impacts our sporting community, even if Second Amendment issues are not your primary interest.
Highlights:
- As has become tradition in California, scores of anti-Second Amendment and anti-sportsmen bills were filed in Sacramento this year.
- Fortunately, many were defeated before they ever got published or received a committee assignment, and many more were defeated once they hit the floor.
- When the final gavel fell, only 16 made it across the finish line, many of which were bills clarifying language in existing law primarily in regard to domestic violence protective orders, and virtually all of the survivors were amended so much that they will have a much lower impact on sportsmen and women in the Golden State, if they have any impact at all.
Last week I reported on the 16 lackluster anti-gun bills that were signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom recently. But what went unsaid was the tremendous effort by our caucus members and in-state partners to create that surprising outcome. This year began with a very aggressive anti-firearms and anti-sportsmen agenda in the California Legislature, but thanks to the teamwork shown in Sacramento, the year ended with a fizzle compared to what has become annual tradition with diminishing gun rights over the years. And, while 16 new laws sounds like a lot, most of them will have minimal impact on sportsmen and women, if any impact at all, thanks to amendments championed by the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation (CSF) and made real by members of the California Outdoor Sporting Caucus and partners within California’s sporting-conservation community.
To put things in perspective, over 6,000 bills were considered in California this year, which is more than many other states combined. Early in the year, approximately 40 bills that would have had some negative effect on firearms use and possession, such as new storage requirements, new gun taxes, etc., were killed outright before publication, never seeing the light of day. This batch also included four land access proposals that were promptly defeated. These bills would have restricted firearms use on public property, like carrying firearms, hunting, prohibited building ranges, and so forth. Further, seven bills that would have restricted the use of dogs while hunting were submitted and all were defeated, including one that would have prohibited the purchase or importation of Labrador retrievers, German short haired pointers, and other breeds, in an effort to choke off the supply of hunting dogs in the state and end the practice of hunting with dogs that way.
Naturally, there was a host of firearms legislation that would have affected the next generation of hunters and shooters too, like AB262, that would have given oversight authority to anti-gun organizations and severely restricted firearms use at youth summer camps, like the Boy Scouts, church camps, law enforcement Explorer camps, etc., and forced a state mandated program on these camps that contained an anti-gun narrative. There was also AB1869, which would have prohibited any firearms advertisements whatsoever anywhere to anyone. This too was defeated.
Another bill, SB1160, would have taxed gun owners on every single firearm they owned, every single year, and would have required them to also report the physical location of those guns. That bill was defeated, but then transformed into a new anti-concealed carry bill, which was also defeated. SB1253 tried to turn the current firearms safety certificate, which is required to purchase a firearm in CA, into a new license. This bill was also defeated. Then there was AB3067, a bill that would have made insurance companies require policy holders to effectively register their firearms with the insurance company and tell insurance agents the location of every gun. That bill was killed, too.
The list goes on, but despite the multitude of bills that were tracked and engaged upon in California in 2024, the salient point is this: most were defeated soundly. Though 16 new laws seems like a lot—and it certainly would be in a state like Iowa or Arkansas, it is important to stop for a moment and consider just how much ground was held in California, one of the most challenging states for sportsmen and women. Go back to my report last week, where I listed the bills that made it, and as you read that list consider what could have been instead were it not for the exceptional and tireless efforts of our in-state partners like the California Rifle and Pistol Association and the National Rifle Association. No restriction on firearms rights is good, but this has truly been a remarkable year given California’s troubled past on our issues.
CSF looks forward to continuing to work with our Golden State partners, and hopefully improving upon this year’s solid progress to better protect the rights of sportsmen and women throughout the Golden State in years to come.
