How Far Will California Go After Barrel Restrictions?

California is looking to restrict gun barrels, as I noted on Wednesday. This is a major escalation in the attempt to regulate guns and the ability for people to make guns at home–something the Supreme Court actually said cannot be banned–and it’s not something we should tolerate.

It’s unfortunate that California is the kind of state where something like that might actually happen.

However, the question of what would come next is bound to come up, and let’s be real here. This will not be the last attempt.

But we shouldn’t get overly hysterical about it, either.

At USA Carry, they have a piece titled, “California Lawmakers Want Background Checks for Gun Barrels — What’s Next, Springs and Screws?”

California lawmakers are advancing a controversial new bill, SB 704, that would treat firearm barrels like complete firearms, requiring all sales and transfers to go through a licensed dealer with a background check. The legislation, introduced by Senator Jesse Arreguín (D), is the latest in a series of proposals that expand regulatory control over individual gun parts — this time targeting components that have never been considered firearms on their own.

Under SB 704, beginning July 1, 2026, firearm barrels could no longer be sold or transferred privately or online without going through a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would mandate in-person transactions, require a background check, and compel dealers to document the sale, including the purchaser’s information and date of transfer. Any violations would be classified as misdemeanors.

…

From a Second Amendment perspective, SB 704 is yet another reminder of how expansive and persistent California’s gun control efforts have become. The concern is not just about barrels — it’s about where this regulatory strategy ends. If barrels require background checks today, what’s next? Springs? Pins? Screws?

I understand the sentiment, but let’s not get carried away here. Pins, springs, and screws are going to be way down on any list, if they show up there at all. All of those have extensive use in fields outside of gun manufacturing, so it’s unlikely they’ll look there. At least, not for a long time.

Going there is understandable, but it’s not helpful, in my opinion. It’s too easy for people to roll their eyes and dismiss the argument because you just went to something they believe to be absurd.

But it’s not without reason, admittedly.

Next won’t be springs and screws, but it will most definitely be something. There will be a next.

My guess is that we’re going to see restrictions on triggers and trigger groups, firing pins, pistol slides and upper receivers, and a host of other parts that are necessary for building a gun, but are also common enough parts for upgrading a gun. My Glock still has a stock trigger that is less than great. Upgrading it is a common thing for a lot of owners, and something I’ve needed to do for years.

California will likely look at something like that next, in part because it makes gun ownership more of a pain in the butt, yet is something they can claim is necessary to stop…whatever they’re claiming needs to be stopped.

So while I don’t think it’s helpful to jump to the idea of springs, pins and screws being restricted, at least not right away, the overall concept of realizing that something will be next is perfectly valid.