California AB 1078: A New Threat to Gun Rights

California is facing another round of aggressive gun control legislation in 2025, and AB 1078 is one of the most concerning bills making its way through the legislature. After covering a wave of new proposals since early this year, Second Amendment advocates are closely watching this one as it moves quickly toward the governor's desk.

What Is AB 1078?

AB 1078 is a direct response to a recent court decision that struck down California’s previous “one-gun-a-month” law as unconstitutional. Instead of accepting the ruling, California lawmakers are pushing AB 1078, which would limit firearm purchases to three guns per month. However, if the state wins its ongoing appeal in the Ninth Circuit, the limit would automatically revert to just one gun per month 30 days after the decision.

This makes the bill a lose-lose situation for gun owners: if the court upholds the restriction, it goes back to the original limit; if the court doesn’t, the new three-gun limit still undermines gun rights.

Where Does the Bill Stand?

• Introduced: February 20, 2025
• Passed the Assembly: June 2, 2025 (strictly along party lines)
• Moved to Senate Public Safety Committee: June 11, 2025

With Democrats holding a supermajority, the bill has faced little resistance and could reach the governor’s desk soon—unless major public opposition emerges.

What Can Be Done?

Organizations like the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and the Gun Owners of California (GOC) are actively lobbying against the bill, but meaningful change will only come if California residents speak up. Phone calls, emails, and public pressure are urgently needed to stop AB 1078 and similar proposals in their tracks.

Final Thoughts

AB 1078 isn’t just about numbers—it’s about a persistent strategy to chip away at Second Amendment protections. Whether it's limiting gun purchases, imposing new fees, or sidestepping court rulings, California lawmakers continue to push forward, largely unchecked. If you're a Californian who values your rights, now is the time to get involved.

Is a Major Suppressor Company Quietly Undermining the Hearing Protection Act?

There are growing concerns within the Second Amendment community about alleged behind-the-scenes lobbying efforts by Silencer Central, one of the nation’s largest suppressor manufacturers and distributors. According to multiple sources and recent federal lobbying records, the company may be working to keep suppressors regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA)—despite public support for the Hearing Protection Act (HPA), which seeks to remove them from the NFA entirely.

Here’s what’s unfolding:

• Inside sources claim Silencer Central has been lobbying members of Congress, including Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), to remove the $200 tax stamp associated with suppressor purchases while keeping the suppressors classified as NFA items.
• Critics argue this move protects Silencer Central’s current business model, which relies on the NFA process to enable direct-to-consumer shipping—something that wouldn’t be allowed if suppressors were sold like standard firearms.
• Lobbying disclosures show the company paid tens of thousands of dollars to firms like Natural Resource Results LLC and RBW Group LLC to lobby for vaguely worded goals like “suppressor tax stamp conservation” and “regulation of suppressor purchases.”
• The timing of these lobbying efforts appears suspect—coinciding closely with the introduction of H.R. 404, the latest version of the Hearing Protection Act.
• While Silencer Central has issued a vague public statement claiming to support “reducing barriers” to suppressor ownership, it remains unclear whether they support full removal from the NFA.

Many in the firearms community, including industry influencers and advocacy organizations, are calling for transparency. They’re urging suppressor manufacturers to publicly and explicitly support the full version of the Hearing Protection Act, including Section 2, which removes suppressors from the NFA entirely.

This could be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to roll back one of the most burdensome firearm regulations. The bill is expected to pass the House and is moving to the Senate—where it could be passed via simple majority under reconciliation rules, bypassing the 60-vote filibuster threshold.

Actionable takeaway:

If you care about your Second Amendment rights and want to see suppressors removed from NFA regulation, now is the time to act. Call your representatives and senators at 202-224-3121, and voice your support for the full version of the Hearing Protection Act. Grassroots pressure is already having an effect—keep it going.

California’s Handgun Roster Under Fire – Big Legal Shifts Could Change Everything

California’s controversial handgun roster—a law that limits which handguns can be sold in the state—has long been criticized for being overly restrictive and outdated. This government-approved list only includes models that pass California’s unique safety tests, often requiring manufacturers to make costly and impractical modifications, such as adding a loaded chamber indicator, magazine disconnect, and microstamping technology. The microstamping requirement, in particular, effectively froze the list with decades-old models because the tech isn’t commercially viable.

But that’s started to change.

Thanks to a legal victory in Bolan v. Bonta, a federal judge issued an injunction blocking enforcement of several of these requirements. While California appealed parts of the ruling, the state did not challenge the injunction against microstamping. That means manufacturers can now submit newer models for approval, and several have already been added to the roster.

However, things aren’t entirely looking up. Another California law—the “3-for-1” rule—requires that for every new handgun added to the roster, three older, grandfathered models must be removed. This has raised alarms, as many of the older handguns don’t meet California’s current standards, placing the entire existing roster at risk of massive shrinkage.

The legality of this 3-for-1 rule, along with the core handgun roster restrictions, is being challenged in the Renna v. Bonta case. Originally filed in 2020, this case also won an injunction at the district court level, which was then stayed by the Ninth Circuit. After a long pause, it’s back in motion, and new briefs were filed as recently as this month.

With major Second Amendment groups backing Renna v. Bonta, and a strong legal argument that these types of restrictions have no historical precedent, there’s real potential to overturn large parts of California’s roster laws. If the Ninth Circuit rules against it, the case could even make its way to the Supreme Court—possibly affecting similar laws across the country.

That said, one major issue remains: SB 452, a law signed in 2023, plans to reinstate the microstamping requirement in 2028 after further research. So, even if progress is made now, Californians aren’t out of the woods just yet.

In short, the fight over California’s handgun roster is heating up again. And with multiple major legal cases—like Miller, Renna, and others—back on track after delays, the landscape could shift significantly in the near future.

Stay tuned.

TIME TO GET LOUD! WE NEED TO LET OUR REPRESENTATIVES KNOW THAT WE OPPOSE THIS BILL!

Copper Jacket TV discusses California Assembly Bill 1127 (AB 1127), recently passed through the state's Judiciary Committee. Dubbed the “Glock ban,” the bill would prohibit the sale of firearms in California that could potentially accept automatic fire converter devices—specifically targeting Glocks and similar handguns. These devices are already illegal under federal and state law, but the bill aims to preemptively ban any firearm capable of being modified with them.

The bill passed quickly, gaining significant support in the legislature and from gun control advocacy groups like Everytown for Gun Safety. Only two organizations—Gun Owners of California and Gun Owners of America—spoke in opposition. Critics argue the bill:

• Targets law-abiding gun owners instead of criminals,
• Attempts to make already-illegal behavior more illegal,
• Is likely unconstitutional based on multiple Supreme Court rulings (e.g., Heller, McDonald, Bruen),
• May lead to lawsuits costing California taxpayers.

Despite the opposition, AB 1127 passed the vote overwhelmingly, and the video encourages viewers to voice their opposition before it moves further. The host warns that California's actions often set a precedent for other states.

There is currently a case at the 9th Circuit called Sanchez v. Bonta that has just received major support from the CRPA and others that could lead to major changes to California.

The case Sanchez v. Bonta is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, challenging California's ban on firearm suppressors. Initially, Mr. Sanchez, representing himself, lost in district court, which ruled suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment. He appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which then considered appointing him legal counsel. This led to major Second Amendment legal teams—Michel & Associates and Cooper & Kirk—joining the case. Their goal is to establish that suppressors are indeed "arms" and protected under the Second Amendment, forcing the state to justify its ban with historical precedent. The case has gained significance, and its outcome could impact gun rights in California.

A new order just released yesterday by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is once again causing problems in California. This is in regards to SB2 and California's "sensitive location" laws. The cases are May v. Bonta and Carallero v. Bonta

The video on Copper Jacket TV discusses updates on California’s SB2 law and its "sensitive locations" provisions that heavily restrict where firearms can be carried. Two related court cases, May v. Bonta and Carolo v. Bonta, challenged the constitutionality of these restrictions, arguing they made nearly all of California a "sensitive location," violating Second Amendment rights.

Key developments:

1. A federal district court previously issued an injunction blocking enforcement of SB2’s sensitive location provisions.
2. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals partially overturned the injunction, allowing some restrictions to remain, such as bans on carrying firearms in playgrounds, parks, casinos, libraries, and parking areas. However, certain rights were restored, including carrying in hospitals, churches, public transit, and under the "vampire rule" (permitting carry in private businesses unless explicitly prohibited).
3. A request for a rehearing by the full Ninth Circuit (en banc review) was denied, leaving the split decision intact.

Next steps:
The plaintiffs may:

• Return to the district court for a final ruling, or
• Appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The video expresses disappointment with the Ninth Circuit’s decision, citing its inconsistency with the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. The host emphasizes the importance of continued legal challenges and legislative changes to address these restrictions.

The No Registry Rights Act, reintroduced by Congressman Michael Cloud and Senator Jim Risch, aims to prohibit the federal government from creating a firearms registry. Key points include:

1. Deleting Existing Records: Mandates the ATF to delete its current database of firearm transaction records, which reportedly contains nearly a billion entries.
2. Preventing Accumulation: Allows Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to destroy records upon closing their businesses, ending the requirement for permanent retention.
3. Prohibiting Future Registries: Bars any federal agency from establishing or maintaining a firearms registry.

The legislation responds to concerns about ATF overreach, including a searchable database created by digitizing records, which critics argue could facilitate a national gun registry. This practice allegedly violates existing federal laws.

The Biden Administration’s policies requiring permanent record retention and a "zero-tolerance" approach to FFL compliance have increased the number of small business closures, further expanding the database.

Advocates for the bill, including Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, and the National Association for Gun Rights, argue the ATF’s practices infringe on Second Amendment rights and threaten privacy. They emphasize the need for vigilance and public support to ensure the legislation passes.

The sponsors encourage citizens to contact their representatives to advocate for this legislation, underscoring its importance to safeguard constitutional freedoms.

The video discusses HB 1132, a controversial gun control bill prefiled in Washington state for 2025. The bill proposes limits on the purchase of firearms and ammunition, restricting individuals to one firearm and 1,000 rounds of standard ammunition (or 100 rounds of .50 caliber) per 30 days. Of course, exceptions apply to government and law enforcement.

CJTV criticizes the bill as a violation of Second Amendment rights and highlights its inconsistency with historical laws or constitutional interpretation, referencing the Supreme Court's Bruen decision. He points out that similar laws, like California's "1 in 30" firearm regulation, have faced judicial challenges and could set a precedent for invalidating HB 1132. However, Washington's bill includes a provision ensuring other parts remain enforceable if sections are overturned.

CJTV urges viewers to read the bill, stay informed, and prepare for potential legal battles against what we view as unconstitutional restrictions.

Today in a massive win for our rights, 13 of 15 circuit court judges voted to restore the rights of Mr. Range. The Third Circuit En Banc panel issued its opinion today providing a path for even more wins.

Copper Jacket TV highlights a major Second Amendment victory involving the case of Brian Range in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Range, a nonviolent felon, lost his gun rights for life after being convicted in 1995 for making a false statement to obtain food stamps during financial struggles. The court ruled that despite his conviction, he remains among "the people" protected by the Second Amendment, and the government failed to justify disarming him based on historical precedent.

The ruling, supported by all but two judges on a 15-judge panel, including Biden and Obama appointees, restored Range’s rights. This decision signals potential broader implications for restoring Second Amendment rights to others in similar situations. The host expresses optimism that this precedent could influence future Supreme Court cases.

A new law which has already partially taken effect in California with the other half set to take effect in 2025 will implement new "merchant category codes". These codes can be used for various purposes by the state including "detection scenarios"

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV! Believe it or not, there's yet another new firearm law in California that we need to talk about, which is going to take effect fairly soon. If you thought California couldn't possibly track you any further, you're going to want to pay attention to this one.

Now, real quick before we get started, a great way to support this channel is to subscribe. It's free, only takes a second, and it really helps us out. Another way to support us is by checking out our main sponsor. Especially if you’re someone who carries for self-defense, having a lawyer in your back pocket is essential. That’s what you get with Attorneys on Retainer.

So, let's dive into what's going on here. In California, things are already tough enough as it is. There are background checks for almost everything, waiting periods, purchase limits, and outright bans. Just about every restriction that can be thought up has been put into law to limit your Second Amendment rights. But this new law takes things a step further.

What we're talking about is the introduction of new Merchant Category Codes. Starting next year, there will be specific codes that categorize purchases related to firearms separately from general sporting goods. So, instead of simply categorizing a purchase as sporting goods, these new codes will identify if you bought firearm-related products.

Now, you might think this isn’t a big deal since California already tracks so much. But you’d be wrong. California can always find ways to use this information against you. Listen to this: A representative from a gun control advocacy group in California mentioned that these Merchant Category Codes can be used to create "detection scenarios." Essentially, they’ll be able to flag patterns in purchasing that could be deemed suspicious, potentially reporting these to law enforcement.

The goal here is not just about separating these category codes. It’s about enabling preventive action — California loves the whole pre-crime concept, which is why they're big on red flag laws. It almost feels like they’re inspired by science fiction movies, constantly coming up with new ways to track and restrict.

For instance, let’s say you go to a store often, maybe three or four times a week. With the new codes, this could appear on a radar as suspicious if your purchases are logged multiple times a month under firearm-related products. This could make you a suspect under their detection scenarios. Who knows how California might use that information? While there are background checks and registration for many things, there are also items that don’t require registration, like buying paper or other miscellaneous items that these stores might sell.

This new law is being rolled out in two stages. The first stage has already happened with the creation of the new category code. Next year, stores will be required to adopt this new code, and if they don’t, there are penalties. Fines could go up to $10,000 per incident for failing to use the code, potentially shutting down businesses that can’t comply. Imagine missing ten transactions — the fine could quickly become astronomical.

California is the starting point, but we’re already seeing other states implement similar measures. Recently, Kathy Hochul in New York signed a bill introducing this in her state, so we’re likely to see this creep into other states soon. However, some states are making it illegal to use Merchant Category Codes specifically for tracking firearm purchases, which shows how divisive and concerning this issue is.

I wanted to make you all aware of this because not many people are talking about it yet. Information is the best tool we have to fight back. Thank you all so much for watching; I really appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and have a great day!