California lawmakers are looking at yet another measure aimed at making it harder to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.
The current bill exemplifies what Black Guns Matter founder Maj Toure says: “All gun control is racist.”
The proposed legislation would require those purchasing firearms to complete a safety training course, according to CBS News.
Buying a gun in California could soon require more than passing a written test.
State lawmakers are advancing a bill, Senate Bill 948, that would require firearm buyers to complete a four-hour safety training course, including live-fire exercises at a shooting range.
California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Before buying a firearm, gun owners must pass a written safety test to obtain a firearm safety certificate.
Luis Lopez, a new gun owner, said the proposed law would add another hurdle for people trying to legally purchase a firearm.
"There's more fees. When you purchase ammo, every year it's a little bit more, so I feel like they're just making it a little bit more difficult," Lopez said.
He said the four-hour training requirement feels unnecessary.
"Those four hours to take that is just a countermeasure, just to make it harder for people to own a gun," Lopez said.
The California bill to require four hours of training for a firearm safety certificate passed the Senate with a 28-9 vote. It now goes to the Assembly: https://t.co/5RkgGbbGVH pic.twitter.com/iOSzLXT6aV
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) May 28, 2026
The Golden State’s anti-gunners contend that more training will help to prevent accidents involving children and inexperienced gun owners. State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, who introduced the bill, said, “We have some of the strongest firearm safety laws in California, but unlike other states, including Maryland and Hawaii, we don’t have any requirements on training.”
Under the bill, those who are crazy enough to move to California would have to obtain a firearm safety certificate and register their firearms with the Justice Department within 180 days after they arrive.
Critics point out that the mandatory training would create unfair barriers for people who wish to exercise a constitutional right.
What the state’s anti-gunners won’t tell you is how it will affect low-income populations. Becoming a gun owner in California is already quite expensive. They must first obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate after passing a written test and paying $25 for a five-year credential. They have to also cover $37.19 in state Dealer Record of Sale fees per transaction as well as dealer transfer charges that can range from $10 to over $100.
On top of that, California imposes an 11 percent excise tax on firearms and ammunition in addition to local sales taxes. Of course, this is only if one wants to have the gun in their home. Those who wish to carry concealed must obtain a permit that involves even more expenses, including a mandatory 16-hour training course that typically costs several hundred dollars along with application and background check fees that can push the total to $500 or more in many jurisdictions.
Under the new bill, gun owners would have to pay even more to complete a four-hour safety course that includes at least one hour of live-fire training. Gun rights groups estimate this could add at least $400 to the cost of purchasing a gun through instructor fees, ammunition, rentals, and range time.
You know who can’t afford all this? Low-income Californians who happen to be mostly black and Hispanic. And this, ladies and gentlemen, is how Democrats love to ensure that racial minorities are unable to arm themselves, leaving them vulnerable to violent criminals.
This has nothing to do with safety. There is no evidence these requirements will save lives. They are simply another way for the state to force certain classes of people to depend on the government to protect them. Unless one is financially well off, they will have a hard time acquiring the means by which they can defend themselves.
The very first gun laws in this country were specifically aimed at preventing black slaves and later freedmen from keeping and bearing arms. Now, since they can’t explicitly say “we don’t want nonwhites to own firearms,” they have to make it cost prohibitive to do so, since most are languishing under other leftist policies that keep minorities in poverty.
If I didn’t know any better, I might be tempted to assume this is by design, right?