April Report

home

Assembly Bills ● AB 1589 - Chen (R) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1589/2025 ○ Analysis: This bill expands who has access to suppressors in Californiaby allowing those who are Level I reserve peace officers to use them in thecourse of their duties when authorized. A few examples of who would beable to use suppressors include persons who have been deputized by alocal police department, such as a reserve deputy sheriff, reserve citypolice officer, a reserve park ranger, and a reserve special agent for theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) amongst others. Expanding access tosuppressors to people who wish to volunteer and give back to theircommunities could potentially be a good way to destigmatize suppressors,allowing an inroad to show that suppressors in the hands of the people arenot dangerous and unusual, but can be useful tools to facilitate lawfulactions. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on March 3rd, 8Ayes, 0 Noes, 1 Absent. Ordered to third reading, eligible for an AssemblyFloor vote. ● AB 1615 - Nguyen (D) - MONITOR ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1615/2025 ○ Analysis: Increasing the frequency of when a peace officer employed by acounty probation department has to complete Peace Officer Standards andTraining (POST) training qualifications with what is deemed to be an“unsafe handgun” appears to be downstream from the misconceivednotion that off-roster handguns are somehow more dangerous than thoseon the roster because of the lack of required features. Additionally, byimposing a state-mandated local program, this bill will cost the state moremoney to schedule even more qualification classes for said specified peaceofficers. We will be monitoring this bill in its current form as it goesthrough the legislative process. ○ Status: Pending the Assembly Appropriations Committee. ● AB 1722 - Hadwick (R) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1722/2025 ○ Analysis: Originally a spot bill, AB 1722 has since been amended. Thisbill would prohibit the imposition of penalties for the violation of taking anendangered animal if proven that the individual was acting in self-defense,defense of their family, or any other individual from bodily harm. Nomatter where you go in the wilderness, certain wild animals still prey onhumans, regardless of their endangered status. Everyone should have theability to protect themselves and others from wild beasts without theapprehension of legal troubles, and this bill corrects that discrepancy. Inthe event that SB 1305 becomes law, this bill will become a much neededsupplement to protect people across California. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 21st. 11 Ayes,0 Noes, 1 Absent. Pending the Assembly Appropriations Committee. ● AB 1743 - Wicks (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1743/2025 ○ Analysis: This bill would authorize cities, counties, and universities togather more information about firearms from the Automated FirearmsSystem (AFS) for research purposes. Considering the left-leaning bias offirearms studies in California, we are skeptical at best that this would beused for impartial or good faith research instead of overtly partisanscrutiny. Furthermore, the thought of having more government agenciesand universities in possession of even more gun owners’ informationthrough the AFS should be met with suspicion, as there are also privacyconcerns with this bill. Leaking gun owners’ personal information is also aserious concern, especially since the DOJ previously had a data breachthat revealed sensitive information about CCW holders in similarcircumstances. ○ Status: Pending the Assembly Appropriations Committee. ● AB 1753 - Stefani (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1753/2025 ○ Analysis: Expanding the scope of protective orders in relation torelinquishing firearms and ammunition should be met with scrutiny.California already has egregious red flag laws that erroneously disarmpeople during the prehearing of a trial. Creating more avenues forvindictive opportunists to disarm people around them is not gun safety, itis weaponizing the judiciary targeted at someone who might not deserve tobe disarmed, inverting due process and perverting justice. Conversely,even if someone is proven to be a danger to themselves or others,criminals do not follow the law, thus they will pay no mind to something astrivial to them as a protective order, and will find a way to access firearmsand ammunition through other means. This bill is likely to be tied up inthe Assembly Appropriations Committee, as implementing a system likethis is costly. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee on April 21st, 9 Ayes, 1No, 2 Absent. Pending the Assembly Appropriations Committee. ● AB 1810 - Berman (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1810/2025 ○ Analysis: From the author who brought us 3-in-30, this bill is anotheriteration of SB 15 from last year, but worse. In another targeted attack onfirearms dealers, this bill seeks to blame law-abiding, honest businessesfor the vex of criminal activity committed with a firearm. The bill wouldrequire the DOJ to conduct a yearly inspection of the ten firearm dealerlocations with the highest percentage of total sales of firearms that wererecovered by law enforcement and found to be illegally possessed, used ina crime, or suspected to have been used in a crime, and would be subject toyearly inspections instead of the usual three year inspection. On top ofthat, this bill would no longer have a fixed $115 maintenance fee for thecentralized firearms dealers list, pursuant to Penal Code Section 28450,but a “reasonable” fee that is subject to change yearly. The fee increasewould be no greater than 15% per year. If a firearm is stolen or usednefariously, why should a firearms dealer be at fault? Gun stores conductthe proper background checks through NICS and the DROS systems, andthe California DOJ clears people to possess firearms. Firearms dealers donot encourage criminal activity; if anything, they do everything they canunder the letter of the law to ensure prospective gun owners complete theprocess by the books. Attacking firearms dealers does not solve anyproblems, and increasing fees to make running a business like this asexpensive as possible only seeks to shut down the stores and furtherrestrict access to firearms. Gun bans or restrictions do not always come inthe form of legislation targeting specific hardware, it also comes in theform of atrocious bills such as this. Just like SB 15, this bill is likely to failin the Appropriations Committee, as something like this is very costly toimplement. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee on April 14th, 7Ayes, 2 Noes. Pending the Assembly Appropriations Committee. ● AB 1912 - Hadwick (R) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1912/2025 ○ Analysis: Allowing more opportunities to conceal carry, especially whilehunting for deer during archery season, helps expand the scope ofconcealed carry. The California Legislature had previously banned beingable to conceal carry while deer hunting with a bow, and this bill seeks toremedy this longstanding prohibition, which is an outlier law compared tothe rest of the states. Proponents of the initial ban stemmed from theunfounded notion that certain hunters would cheat while hunting byshooting the deer with a gun, then claim that they shot it with a bow andarrow. Since 1947, when the initial restrictions were put in place, there hasonly been one example of someone being accused of violating this law, andthere was insufficient evidence to prove that individual actually committedthe crime. Needless to say, this singular alleged occurrence should notdictate the scope of carrying a firearm while deer hunting with a bow. Forall intents and purposes, this law has fallen under the rare legal doctrine ofdesuetude. Years ago, there were successful efforts from the CRPA andNRA with a petition that legalized carrying a firearm during archeryseason while hunting big and small game. Striking the prohibitionpertaining to deer hunting is one of the final building blocks to fullyderegulate carrying a firearm while bow hunting. Archers should be able toprotect themselves in the most effective way possible in the wilderness.This bill has been placed on the Consent Calendar, and has also receivedbipartisan support in the Assembly and Senate. ○ Status: Consent Calendar item. Passed the Assembly Floor, 68 Ayes, 0Noes, 12 Absent. Pending the Senate Rules Committee. ● AB 1943 - Gipson (D) - MONITOR ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1974/2025 ○ Analysis: Giving educational resources for families to learn about theconvoluted web of California gun laws, even if it may be a fraction of theplethora of statutes on the books, can help if used correctly. As we haveseen before, there have been legislative efforts to codify propaganda, someof which has already been signed into law, to be sent out to gun ownersthat contain very biased information meant to demean gun ownership todiscourage it altogether. The bill author has not indicated that creatingmore state-mandated propaganda is his goal, and that providing neutral,straightforward information is the main intent, but we will be keeping aneye on this bill as it goes through the legislative process. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Education Committee on March 18th, 8Ayes, 0 Noes. Pending the Assembly Appropriations Committee. ● AB 1948 - Ramos (D) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1948/2025 ○ Analysis: Coming off the heels of AB 1092 failing in the Assembly PublicSafety Committee in January, this new bill aims to expand conceal carryonce again. When first introduced, this bill would have changed thevalidity for newly issued CCWs to three years, and renewals would be validfor six years. Since going through the Assembly Public Safety Committee,this bill was amended to remove the original language, and the newestversion of the bill makes CCWs valid for three years no matter if it is a newlicense or a renewal. Extending the validity of CCWs incrementally is astep in the right direction to not make bearing arms such a tedious task inCalifornia. With understaffed sheriff’s departments, absurd applicationprocessing times from certain municipalities, and extraneous fees, this bill,even in its current form, could alleviate the workload for departments toallow new CCW licenses and renewals to be processed more efficiently andcost effectively. Moreover, this can set the stage for future bills to continueto increase CCW validity to ensure California eventually catches up withthe vast majority of the other less restrictive states and those CCWstandards. In regard to concerns expressed by many pertaining to the“shall not exceed” portion of the bill, that language already exists in thepenal code, and CCWs are continually valid for two years all acrossCalifornia, even in hostile counties such as Los Angeles County.Unexpectedly, this bill was introduced by Assemblymembers JamesRamos and Avelino Valencia, two Democrats; a pro-gun bill fromDemocrats in California is quite anomalous, but we are open to havingAssemblymembers Ramos and Valencia assist us in good faith to progresspositive CCW legislation. The CRPA Women Armed to Vote and Educate(WAVE) group made inroads at the capitol earlier this year, and helpedadvocate for this issue. Since this bill is a consent calendar item, it willlikely be fast-tracked through the legislative process. ○ Status: Consent Calendar item. Passed the Assembly Floor, 71 Ayes, oNoes, 9 Absent. Pending the Senate Rules Committee. ● AB 1974 - Stefani (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1974/2025 ○ Analysis: The vast majority of self-disarming programs wherein peoplerelinquish their firearms waste money and resources and do not contributeto a decline in crime. Police Departments do not have the capacity tocreate space for people to store firearms, and should not be treated as aglorified storage shed. This bill received bipartisan support in theAssembly Public Safety Committee. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Floor on April 20th, 71 Ayes, 2 Noes, 7Absent. Pending the Senate Rules Committee. ● AB 2047 - Bauer-Kahan (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2047/2025 ○ Analysis: This bill not only restricts constitutional behavior coveredunder the Second Amendment, but the First Amendment as well, blockingthe free flow of information to those who possess 3D printers. 3D printercodes are protected speech under the First Amendment. Another frivolousban that does nothing to enhance public safety under the guise of targeting“ghost guns,” this does nothing to stop the illegal manufacturing offirearms, as criminals could still obtain a 3D printer from out of state thatcould not have the algorithm to block the printing codes. Aside from that,many of the firearm parts that can be 3D printed share very similarschematics to parts used in the medical field to save lives. This means thatthis proposed state-mandated code blocking algorithm could stymiemedical advancements that could potentially put people’s lives injeopardy. An unlikely ally in the fight against this bill, the ACLU has alsovoiced their opposition towards this proposed legislation. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing on April 14th,9 Ayes, 0 Noes, 3 Absent. Pending the Assembly AppropriationsCommittee. ● AB 2207 - Hadwick (R) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2207/2025 ○ Analysis: This bill does three things. It acts as a supplement to SB 1021,wherein hunting tags can be donated to nonprofit organizations todistribute them to children with life-threatening illnesses to make theirwish of going hunting a reality. Additionally, the bill would establish a wayto transfer tags to disabled veterans. Furthermore, this bill would alsoestablish a system for someone to transfer hunting tags to their child orgrandchild. This bill aims to preserve the American tradition of huntingfor all generations, creating more opportunities to go hunting, and givingback to those to bravely put their lives on the line for our nation. In theevent that an adult or legal guardian is unable to go hunting and use thattag, this bill would ensure that it can still be used by their child for thatsame hunt, giving the child an extra chance to learn and participate. ○ Status: Passed the Assembly Water, Parks and Wildlife Committeehearing on April 14th, 13 Ayes, 0 Noes; Consent Calendar item candidate.Pending the Assembly Appropriations Committee. ● AB 2584 - Flora (R) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB2584/2025 ○ Analysis: This bill started as a repeat of AB 1488 from last year, entitledthe Preemptive Self Defense Act of 2026, which previously helped protectpeople from liability who use lawful resistance to fend off an assailant inself-defense, and prohibits one’s background, training, or fighting skillsfrom being taken into account when determining reasonable force. Thisbill has been amended since passing the Assembly Public SafetyCommittee, and now specifies that there shall be no civil liability on thepart of, and no cause of action shall accrue against, a person who lawfullyresists a public offense. Although the bill has slightly changed, this versionof the bill still bolsters self-defense by protecting lawful individuals whoresist a public offense. ○ Status: Assembly Judiciary Committee hearing on April 28th at 9 AM.Senate Bills ● SB 948 - Arreguín (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB948/2025 ○ Analysis: The idea for this bill was already defeated last year in the formof AB 1187, and is now being tried again in the Senate by the same Senatorwho introduced SB 704, the barrel background checks bill from last year.If signed into law, this bill would place another monetary and timeconsuming roadblock in the way for people to access firearms; requiringeight hours of mandatory state-approved training is absurd, and itcertainly will not be cheap. Shooting ranges do not have the capacity tohost a myriad of training courses, which will result in delaying law-abidingpeople from acquiring arms in a reasonable manner. The governmentdictating the manner in which the people can exercise their rights throughoverbearing licensing schemes is, and always will be, an egregiousoverreach and meaningfully constrains the right to keep and bear arms.Similar to other gun control measures, this bill would also create astate-mandated local program, which will cost the state extra money tooperate. Additionally, the funds for this new program would come fromthe Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) account upon appropriation from theLegislature. We believe this could potentially open the door for the DOJ toincrease the total DROS fees if the Department wishes to accrue moremoney for the DROS account, causing all background check fees toincrease. We are hopeful that this bill, just like AB 1187, will be defeated inthe Appropriations Committee. ○ Status: Senate Appropriations Committee hearing was on April 13th,placed on the Suspense File. ● SB 1021 - Choi (R) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1021/2025 ○ Analysis: This is a CRPA backed bill. Expanding opportunities forhunting and fishing has always been a part of our mission at CRPA, and weare excited to be giving back to youth who are bravely battlinglife-threatening illnesses and have lost a family member in service to thiscountry. The Department of Fish and Wildlife would be tasked withcreating a program to increase hunting and fishing opportunities for saidyouth by January 1st, 2028. This bill has also received bipartisan supportin the Senate and Assembly. ○ Status: Senate Appropriations Committee hearing was on April 20th,placed on the Suspense File. ● SB 1220 - Hurtado (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1220/2025 ○ Analysis: Adding a new 10-year prohibitive misdemeanor for those whoalter external or cosmetic features that is not the serial number of the gunis frivolous, and only adds more word soup to the already messy penalcode pertaining to prohibitive misdemeanors. We believe that this couldopen the door for criminalizing any alterations a gun owner makes to theirfirearm, potentially killing aftermarket support for those who like tocustomize firearms. Additionally, for those who receive an older firearmwith damaged markings that might be hard to read due to its condition,throwing the book at collectors will discourage the historical preservationof certain firearms. Intentionally filing off the serial number is one thing,but slightly changing the appearance of a gun in other ways, or receiving afirearm in bad condition should not be grounds for such a harsh penalty. ○ Status: Senate Appropriations Committee hearing was on April 20th,placed on the Suspense File. ● SB 1305 - Richardson (D) - OPPOSE ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1305/2025 ○ Analysis: While the grizzly bear is an iconic symbol of California, statewildlife management resources that already monitor mountain lions, blackbears, and wolves, are stretched too thin and inadequate to handlereintroducing another apex predator. Too many bears can endangercertain communities, hunters, and other outdoors enthusiasts, especiallysince California is much more populated than it was when the grizzly bearwent extinct in the state many years ago. If grizzly bears started to comeback to California naturally, this would be a different conversation.However, creating a roadmap for artificial reintroduction raises manyconcerns for public safety and wildlife management. If these endangeredbears are reintroduced, their classification as endangered comes withthem, which would also create hundreds of miles of no hunting zones sincean endangered species would be occupying these areas. This bill issponsored by two Native American tribes, the Yurok and the Tejon, and isopposed by the Counties of Lassen and Siskiyou. David Bess, a retireddeputy with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, testified in opposition.He states: “Advancing this proposal at this time will place unrealisticdemands on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and riskcompounding existing carnivore management challenges.” ○ Status: Passed the Senate Natural Resources and Water Committeehearing on April 7th, 5 Ayes, 2 Noes. Pending the Senate AppropriationsCommittee. ● SB 1397 - Alvarado-Gil (R) - SUPPORT ○ Bill Text: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB1397/2025 ○ Analysis: Mountain lion encounters are becoming more frequent due tothe mismanagement of wildlife resources. The uptick in encounters hasresulted in lives lost and many close calls. Ever since the 1970s, mountainlions have been gaining protections, and this allowed the population toproliferate to unmanageable numbers; estimates put the number ofmountain lions in California somewhere between 6,000 and 7,500,depending on who you ask. Furthermore, in February of this year, the Fishand Game Commission classified six populations of mountain lions asendangered, which protects about 1,400 cougars. Governor Newsom’sfather, William Newsom, founded the Mountain Lion Foundation, whichhelped champion policies such as Prop 117, which banned mountain lionhunting in California, and have contributed to this intractablepredicament. Expanding programs to find more ways to deterhuman-mountain lion conflicts aligns with our goals at CRPA to protectoutdoorsmen while maintaining conservation efforts. These researchefforts being focused on in this bill are non-lethal methods of deterrence.This bill acts as another iteration to Senator Alvarado-Gil's effortspertaining to this topic since SB 818 was defeated last year. To implementthese programs, the Department of Fish and Wildlife would engage inpublic outreach activities, and a report would be required to be submittedto the legislature on or before October 1st, 2031. ○ Status: Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on April 27th at 10AM.