California Assemblyman Marc Berman, a Democrat from Menlo Park, is an unlikely champion of relaxing the state’s draconian gun laws. This is the same guy who wrote a bill signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom that mandates “information about the risks of gun ownership be provided at point of sale” of every firearm in the state.
So why is Berman now proposing changing California law to let non-residents apply for a concealed carry permit and relaxing, however slightly, the state’s one-gun-a-month law and bans on bringing firearms onto public transportation?
A California bill regarding restraining orders has been amended into a massive bill to respond to numerous firearm lawsuits by:
1) Allowing non-residents to apply for carry permits if they can “attest[], under oath, that the jurisdiction in which they have applied is the primary… pic.twitter.com/vIJBRupLEw
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) April 2, 2025
An attempt to moot the various lawsuits challenging these aspects of California’s gun control laws is the simplest explanation for the small bones Berman is tossing towards gun owners.
His proposal to let non-residents apply for carry permits in jurisdictions where they plan on spending the majority of their time in-state, for instance, borrows liberally from a U.S. District Court order in California Rifle & Pistol Association, et al v. Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department et al that allows CRPA, GOA, and SAF members to apply for a concealed handgun permit in “a California jurisdiction in which they intend to spend time within the subsequent twelve months”. But Berman’s proposal is more restrictive than the injunction set forth by Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett, which allowed those members to apply for a permit anywhere in the state where they might visit.
Berman gave another nod to the courts with the section of AB 1078 dealing with the state’s “1-in-30” law; modifying it to allow the purchase of three guns in 30 days, but only if the Ninth Circuit upholds a lower court decision that found the law a violation of the Second Amendment. That gives the game away right there: this isn’t about protecting the right to keep and bear arms, but mooting some of the litigation that stands a very good chance of overturning these draconian statutes altogether.
Interestingly, the bill also modifies the ban on carry permits to those who are “currently abusing controlled substances… or alcohol” to specify that it “does not apply to the lawful habitual or occasional use or consumption of cannabis or alcohol.” pic.twitter.com/4uMgnC0fTP
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) April 2, 2025
That appears to be one of the few modifications to the original text of AB 1078 that isn’t designed as a response to ongoing litigation, and it’s definitely an improvement over the current language surrounding concealed carry permits. What is “abuse” of controlled substances? In some jurisdictions it may be nothing more than eating an occasional gummy, while other licensing authorities might set the bar at seeking treatment or a criminal record related to criminal behavior or activity under the influence. Berman’s language would establish definitively that marijuana, at least, which is legal for both medical and recreational use, is not a barrier to exercising your right to bear arms in California.
Another change proposed by Berman would be to relax the complete prohibition on firearms on public transportation by allowing them to be transported while unloaded and in a locked container. That doesn’t go nearly enough to satisfy the Second Amendment, in my opinion. Even if the courts conclude that public transit is a “sensitive place” (which I disagree with), only allowing permit holders to transport their firearms in a locked box while unloaded still renders them essentially useless for self-defense both before and after exiting a bus or light rail. Someone unloading (or loading) their firearm after taking it out of their secured storage could easily be cited or charged with brandishing a weapon, which is a misdemeanor offense punishable by a minimum of 30 days in jail. The simplest solution is to let those with carry permits bear arms on public transportation, but that’s a step Berman is unwilling to take.
The big question now is whether Berman can get buy in from either his fellow Democrats or Republican lawmakers in Sacramento. Anti-gun lawmakers may very well want to let these issues rest until the Ninth Circuit fully adjudicates CRPA v LASD and other Second Amendment-related cases, and members of the Republican minority in the Assembly might prefer the same instead of granting relatively minor relief to gun owners at the expense of the ongoing litigation.
AB 1078 is sitting in Assembly Public Safety, and no date for a hearing or vote has been scheduled as of yet. We’ll be keeping our eyes out for any movement on the bill, and will hopefully get some analysis from CRPA legislative affairs liaison Rick Travis in the near future.
Read the full article here
