California has once again taken gun control to a new level. Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1344 into law — a bill that significantly expands red flag confiscation powers in the state. This new law launches a pilot program in four counties: Ventura, Santa Clara, El Dorado, and Alameda, giving even more authority to state officials to file Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). This expansion could easily double the number of red flag orders issued in California — which already leads the nation in confiscations.

Under existing California law, a wide range of people can file for a GVRO against you — including neighbors, roommates, romantic partners, family members, co-workers, employers, and even your child’s school officials. Now, thanks to AB 1344, District Attorneys can also initiate red flag orders.

To make matters worse, all data from this pilot program will be shared with research groups that have a history of supporting stricter gun control. The goal? To study and find new ways to further expand red flag laws statewide.

Since GVRO laws took effect in 2016, California has issued more than 11,000 confiscation orders — many against citizens who haven’t been charged with a single crime. The number already exceeds 7,000 verified cases in less than a decade.

In Santa Clara County, officials issued 700 GVROs in 2024 alone, averaging nearly two per day. Despite these staggering numbers, District Attorney Jeff Rosen has publicly stated that his office “can do better” and plans to push for even more filings by “raising awareness” among law enforcement.

Opponents argue that these laws strip individuals of their Second Amendment rights without due process. Once a GVRO is filed, a judge can approve it without the accused even being present in court. Law enforcement then confiscates the person’s firearms and prevents them from acquiring new ones — all before any crime is proven.

Many gun rights advocates, including Will from Copper Jacket TV, see this as nothing more than “backdoor confiscation” disguised as public safety. As he explains, simply owning body armor or displaying firearms responsibly could be enough for someone to file a red flag against you in California.

While supporters claim red flag laws prevent violence, critics see them as an unconstitutional power grab. With the passage of AB 1344, California’s approach to gun confiscation is likely to become even more aggressive — and other states may soon follow suit.

As awareness spreads, Will urges gun owners to stay vigilant, know their rights, and choose their circles wisely, especially in states where due process is being replaced by suspicion.

California’s AB 1344 dramatically increases who can red flag you and could set the stage for a statewide expansion of confiscation powers. Whether you’re a California gun owner or a supporter of constitutional rights nationwide, this development is one to watch closely.

California’s controversial new gun law, AB127, often dubbed the “Glock Ban,” is already facing a major federal challenge. On October 13th, just three days after Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill, a federal lawsuit titled James v. Bonta was filed in the Southern District of California.

The case, brought by three major Second Amendment organizations — the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the National Rifle Association (NRA) — argues that AB127’s prohibition on certain semi-automatic handguns, including popular Glock-style pistols, is a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to rule Penal Code Section 27595A unconstitutional and block its enforcement. The plaintiffs argue that these handguns are “in common use” for lawful self-defense and cannot be banned under existing Supreme Court precedent (referencing D.C. v. Heller).

What’s notable is that California has previously admitted in court that firearms commonly used for self-defense cannot be banned — a point that could significantly weaken the state’s defense. Critics of AB127 claim it’s a politically driven attempt to further restrict Second Amendment rights, with minimal justification beyond advancing an anti-gun agenda.

In response to the lawsuit, FPC President Brandon Combs stated:

“The Constitution does not allow elitist politicians to decide which constitutionally protected guns the people may own. California doesn’t get to tell the people that their rights end where Governor Newsom’s anti-Second Amendment politics begin.”

If successful, this case could set a major legal precedent limiting California’s ability to impose similar firearm restrictions in the future. While legal battles like this often take months or years, gun rights advocates are hopeful that the courts will issue an injunction before July 1, 2026, when the law is set to take effect.

For now, all eyes are on Judge Bencivengo’s court, where James v. Bonta may become the next landmark case shaping the future of gun rights in America.

California has once again become the testing ground for extreme gun control laws, and this time, it may be one of the biggest attacks on the Second Amendment yet. Governor Gavin Newsom has officially signed a sweeping gun control package that critics say shreds the Constitution and sets the stage for national copycat legislation.

Yesterday afternoon, Governor Newsom signed dozens of new bills into law, including three that stand out for their sweeping impact on law-abiding gun owners:

• AB 1127 (The “Glock Ban”) – Outlaws an entire category of handguns, effectively removing them from California’s handgun roster.
• SB 74 (Background Checks on Barrels) – Requires eligibility checks at FFLs for purchasing firearm barrels.
• AB 1078 (Purchase Limit Bill) – Restricts gun owners to three firearm transactions per month.

Each of these bills, now signed, further limits Californians’ ability to purchase, own, and modify firearms, creating even more hurdles for responsible gun owners.

Here are the key implementation dates for these new restrictions:

• AB 1078 – Takes effect April 1, 2026
• AB 1127 – Takes effect July 1, 2026
• SB 74 – Takes effect July 1, 2027

These laws do not apply to law enforcement or select government groups, highlighting what critics see as a double standard that targets average citizens rather than criminals.

In response to these new laws, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued a powerful statement condemning the governor’s actions:

“Governor Newsom has once again proven that California’s political class will stop at nothing to attack peaceable people and their rights. AB1127 is an unconstitutional, bad-faith attempt to outlaw some of the most common firearms in the United States. But no tyrant, no politician, and no state will ever be allowed to extinguish the rights of a free people. Not now, not ever.”

The FPC confirmed that their legal team has been preparing lawsuits against these bills for months. Other 2A organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation (2AF), the Gun Owners of California (GOC), and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), are also expected to file legal challenges.

However, as Copper Jacket TV’s Will points out, California lawsuits can take years to move through the courts, especially in the Ninth Circuit, which has a reputation for upholding restrictive gun laws.

Interestingly, Newsom’s signing of this gun control package was quiet compared to his usual press spectacles. In the past, he has held media events alongside groups like Mom’s Demand Action to promote these laws.

This time, however, there was no fanfare—possibly because Newsom doesn’t want footage of him signing controversial gun bans circulating as he positions himself for a presidential run.

Regardless of the motivation, one thing is clear: he has never vetoed a gun control bill that reached his desk.

Now that these bills are law, the best way to fight back is to support local and national 2A organizations that are taking legal action. Groups like FPC, CRPA, GOC, 2AF, and GOA need membership support to continue funding these constitutional battles.

As Will from Copper Jacket TV urges:

“Find the group that best fits you and join the fight. These laws are signed, but that doesn’t mean we stop pushing back.”

California’s latest round of gun control laws marks another serious blow to the Second Amendment. With bans on handguns, limits on firearm purchases, and background checks for barrels, the state continues to tighten its grip on gun owners.

But with organizations like the FPC and 2AF ready to take the fight to federal court, the battle for the Constitutional rights of Californians is far from over.

In a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has backed down after heavy backlash from the Second Amendment (2A) community over the controversial Reese v. ATF case.

This case challenges the federal handgun ban on young adults between the ages of 18 and 20, and it recently sparked outrage when the court required 2A organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (2AF) to hand over their member lists to the federal government.

Initially, the DOJ filed a proposed judgment asking the court to limit relief only to specific plaintiffs and verified members of the involved organizations. The DOJ argued that they needed to identify members in order to comply with the judgment, citing Rule 65D of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This effectively meant that the government wanted names of private citizens who were members of these 2A groups—a move that gun rights advocates called dangerous and unacceptable. Many saw it as an effort to build a list of gun owners and supporters, raising serious privacy and constitutional concerns.

The 2A community erupted in protest, criticizing both the DOJ and the court for what many saw as a direct threat to civil liberties.

After days of intense pushback, the FPC announced breaking news: the DOJ had caved. All parties—including the DOJ—filed a joint motion asking the court to change the judgment’s language.

Under the proposed change, the court would replace the word “shall provide” with “may provide”, meaning 2A organizations would no longer be required to hand over their member lists, though they could voluntarily do so if they chose.

This simple change from “shall” to “may” marks a major victory for gun rights advocates concerned about government overreach and potential misuse of member data.

This case exposes a broader issue in 2A litigation—limited-scope judgments that only apply to certain members or plaintiffs. Critics argue that if a law is found unconstitutional, it should apply to all citizens, not just a select few.

Moreover, the DOJ’s reversal shows the power of public pressure. Without the vocal resistance from gun owners and advocacy groups, the department likely wouldn’t have altered its stance.

The joint motion requests that the court act before October 14, 2025, giving just a few days for a decision. If approved, it would prevent mandatory disclosure of member information and mark a notable win for privacy and Second Amendment rights.

As Copper Jacket TV’s Will puts it, the community’s unified voice made a difference—proving once again that public awareness and pushback can influence how the government treats gun owners’ rights.

The ongoing battle over Second Amendment rights in California took a dramatic turn as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines—a decision that has stirred outrage among gun rights advocates nationwide.

In a 7–4 ruling, the court sided with California, declaring that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are not protected under the Second Amendment, or that even if they are, the state’s restriction aligns with the nation’s “historical tradition” of regulating dangerous weapons.

What made this ruling particularly controversial wasn’t just the outcome—it was the response from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the dissenting judges.

Rather than relying solely on a written opinion, VanDyke released an unprecedented video dissent on YouTube, where he personally handled firearms to demonstrate how magazines and firing mechanisms function. His goal, according to his statement, was to provide a “visual explanation” that written words alone could not convey.

The move, however, was met with immediate backlash from other members of the court.

Judge Marsha Berzon, concurring with the majority, sharply criticized VanDyke’s approach, accusing him of acting as an “expert witness” and introducing materials outside the case record—a serious departure from judicial norms.

Berzon labeled the video as “wildly improper,” arguing that it blurred the lines between judicial reasoning and public advocacy. Legal scholars have since debated whether VanDyke’s video dissent could impact judicial ethics and the integrity of appellate proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision may not be the end of this story. With ongoing litigation surrounding gun control and the Second Amendment, it’s possible the issue could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the Bruen precedent’s emphasis on historical analysis.

If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it could once again redefine how lower courts interpret the constitutional right to bear arms—and whether states like California can continue to enforce sweeping magazine restrictions.

This case highlights the deep divide within the judiciary over how to balance public safety and constitutional freedoms.
Judge VanDyke’s video dissent, while unconventional, underscores growing frustration among some jurists who believe the courts are undermining the Second Amendment through what they see as political rulings rather than legal reasoning.

Whether or not the Supreme Court intervenes, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling—and VanDyke’s fiery video response—will likely shape the national conversation on gun rights for years to come.

In a recent Copper Jacket TV update, host Will breaks down three major new gun control bills passed in California — SB74, AB1078, and AB1127 — warning that they could dramatically impact law-abiding gun owners while doing little to deter criminals. SB74 introduces background checks and registration for barrels; AB1078 reinstates a three-per-month firearm purchase limit, despite prior court rulings deeming such restrictions unconstitutional; and AB1127, dubbed the “Glock ban,” eliminates an entire brand and category of handguns from the state’s approved roster.

Will explains that although these bills passed in September, Governor Gavin Newsom has 30 days from the time each reaches his desk to sign or veto them. If he takes no action, they automatically become law after 12 days. Given Newsom’s political ambitions, Will predicts he will sign all three — possibly in a high-profile event — before the first deadline of October 17.

Gun rights advocates are already preparing legal challenges, arguing that these laws unfairly target responsible citizens and undermine the Second Amendment. Will closes by urging viewers to stay informed, subscribe for updates, and continue supporting the fight for constitutional rights in California

Breaking 2A News: The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear part of a major gun rights case—Wolford v. Lopez—originating from Hawaii and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

While the Court only granted certiorari (SER) on one of two questions, that question tackles a critical issue: Can a state presumptively ban concealed carry on private property open to the public unless the property owner gives explicit permission? This controversial policy, known as the “vampire rule,” effectively disarms permit holders unless businesses post signs allowing carry.

The case challenges Hawaii’s restrictive carry law, which mirrors similar laws in New York and California. If overturned, it could have nationwide implications for how states regulate so-called “sensitive locations” and private property carry rights post-Bruen.

This move comes as the Supreme Court faces growing pressure to address several other high-profile Second Amendment cases. While Wolford v. Lopez is a step forward, many in the 2A community hope it won’t be the only case SCOTUS addresses in 2025.

California’s latest push for stricter firearm restrictions is facing new hurdles. AB1127, widely known as the “Glock ban,” and AB1078, which would restrict residents to three firearm purchases per month, recently advanced from the Assembly to the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Both bills were placed in the suspense file, meaning their financial impact will be reviewed before any further votes. While this doesn’t kill the bills outright, it puts them in legislative limbo. With California already facing major budget issues, the potential for costly lawsuits—which could stretch on for years—may weigh heavily on whether lawmakers allow these bills to move forward.

Another measure, SB74, which adds background checks for barrels, is also progressing and may face similar fiscal scrutiny.

Over the next two weeks, the fate of these bills will be decided. If they pass out of suspense, they’ll head to the Senate floor and potentially the governor’s desk. If not, they may stall indefinitely.

For gun owners, Second Amendment supporters, and California residents alike, the outcome of AB1127, AB1078, and SB74 could reshape the state’s gun laws and influence other states to follow suit.

DOJ Confirms ATF Pistol Brace Rule Vacated After Fifth Circuit Appeal Dropped

A Major Win in the Pistol Brace Lawsuits

In a major development for gun owners, the DOJ has confirmed that the ATF’s pistol brace rule is vacated nationwide. This follows the Department of Justice’s decision to drop its Fifth Circuit appeal in the Mock v. Garland case, allowing Judge O’Connor’s earlier ruling striking down the rule to remain in effect.

What Judge O’Connor’s Ruling Means

Judge O’Connor found that the ATF violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by issuing a final rule that was not a logical outgrowth of its proposed rule. Because of this procedural failure, the brace rule was declared unlawful and set aside.

California’s SB452: New Law Could Ban Sale of Semi-Automatic Handguns by 2028

The state of California has taken a major step that could effectively ban the sale of all new semi-automatic handguns by the year 2028. The new legislation, known as SB452, introduces sweeping changes to the Unsafe Handgun Act, creating concern across the firearm community and among Second Amendment supporters.

What Is SB452?

SB452 is a California law signed in 2023 that requires all semi-automatic handguns sold in California to feature microstamping technology beginning January 1, 2028. Unlike earlier versions of the roster law, which allowed legacy handguns to remain on the market, SB452 applies to all new and existing models sold by licensed dealers in the state.

Why This Matters to California Gun Owners

This law may not ban semi-auto handguns directly, but by requiring technology that no gun manufacturer currently uses or produces at scale, it creates a de facto semi-automatic handgun ban in California. Microstamping—designed to imprint unique identifiers on spent shell casings—is not in widespread use and is considered unworkable by many in the industry.

DOJ Report Declares Microstamping "Viable"

For SB452 to move forward, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) was required to assess whether microstamping is a viable technology. In a report recently released by Attorney General Rob Bonta, the DOJ claimed that microstamping is indeed viable, thus activating the law’s 2028 deadline.

Excerpt from DOJ Press Release:

“Beginning January 1, 2028, the Unsafe Handgun Act will mandate that all semi-automatic handguns sold by licensed dealers must be verified as Microstamp-enabled.” — Office of the California Attorney General

What Happens After January 1, 2028?

• Dealers will be prohibited from selling new semi-automatic handguns that do not meet the microstamping requirement.
• Nothing currently on the California handgun roster includes this technology.
• Manufacturers are unlikely to develop these features due to cost, complexity, and lack of demand elsewhere.
• Private ownership of existing handguns is not affected—this only impacts new sales.

How Gun Owners Can Prepare

If you're a California resident or a dealer in the state, it's critical to stay updated on these developments. This law may limit your access to modern self-defense handguns and could have serious implications for Second Amendment rights in California.

Spread the word to fellow gun owners and consider joining advocacy efforts that aim to challenge laws like SB452. Legal challenges may emerge based on the unavailability of compliant firearms and the impact on consumer rights.

Key SEO Keywords to Note:

• California handgun law 2028
• SB452 microstamping requirements
• semi-automatic handgun ban California
• microstamping technology firearms
• California Department of Justice gun laws

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always consult an attorney regarding your specific legal rights and obligations under current California firearm laws.