{"id":114879,"date":"2026-01-29T23:48:03","date_gmt":"2026-01-30T05:48:03","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=114879"},"modified":"2026-01-29T23:48:03","modified_gmt":"2026-01-30T05:48:03","slug":"114879","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=114879","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

The \u2018Common Sense Gun Control\u2019 Lie: How Antigun States Restrict Access to the Second Amendment.<\/a><\/p>\n

Events in Minnesota<\/a>\u00a0have created some strange temporary bedfellows. An opponent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement\u2019s efforts, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed by federal officers. Because he happened to be carrying a firearm while protesting against deportations, the typical talking points coming from many politicians have completely flipped from their typical stances on guns and the Second Amendment.<\/p>\n

On the one hand,\u00a0some Trump administration officials<\/a>, and later even\u00a0the President himself<\/a>, asserted that carrying a firearm at a protest or near law enforcement officers is illegal.\u00a0Both of those claims are false in Minnesota<\/a>, with the latter claim being false everywhere else, too. Whether any of this leads to a policy shift remains to be seen, though that seems unlikely. Generally speaking, the second Trump Administration has been very helpful to Second Amendment activists,\u00a0particularly to those of us in antigun states like California<\/a>.<\/p>\n

But just as the President and a few members of his administration were rhetorically throwing the Second Amendment under the bus, some politicians who have long opposed gun rights suddenly express support for the right to keep and bear arms. This support, of course, is phony.<\/p>\n

As all of this was going on, Virginia Democrats were\u00a0advancing legislation to ban the gun and magazine he carried<\/a>, along with many other popular firearms. Just like stray comments from President Trump likely don\u2019t indicate any real shift in policy, neither does Democrats suddenly voicing support for the Second Amendment mean that they will be opposing further gun control laws.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Governor Newsom Capitalizes, Feigns Support for the Second Amendment<\/h5>\n

Still, the response of one particularly fervent opponent of the Second Amendment is worth examining in further depth. California Governor Gavin Newsom, who\u00a0mocked the idea<\/a>\u00a0that any right to carry exists at all and recently pushed to\u00a0amend the Second Amendment<\/a>, put out\u00a0a statement<\/a>\u00a0stating that . . .<\/p>\n

Nothing is sacred in Trump\u2019s America; not the First Amendment, not the Second, not even life itself.<\/em><\/p>\n

The press release then shifted into a broad defense of California\u2019s draconian gun laws, stating that \u201cthe nation\u2019s highest court has been equally clear that Second Amendment rights are not without limits.\u201d While a line-by-line rebuttal would be fun, particularly as it pertains to the supposed efficacy of California\u2019s gun laws, I want to focus on one particular part of the press release:<\/p>\n

California\u2019s gun safety approach prioritizes regulating who can access firearms rather than imposing a blanket ban on lawful gun ownership, including universal background checks, red flag laws to temporarily remove guns from people in crisis, and prohibitions for violent offenders and domestic abusers. State laws recognize public safety doesn\u2019t stop at the point of sale, including providing for stronger oversight of gun dealers, preventing straw purchasing and firearms trafficking, and ensuring civil accountability when negligence fuels illegal gun markets.<\/em><\/p>\n

Reading all of that in a vacuum, one would be forgiven for thinking that while California may throw up some hurdles to buying a gun, once you have shown yourself to be a qualified person free of any criminal record or \u201cred flags,\u201d you will enjoy an unimpeded right to keep and bear arms in California.<\/p>\n

This is also what many gun control proponents want the public to focus on, with calls for universal background checks and red flag laws typically being front and center. For example, when the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health\u00a0put out an article<\/a>\u00a0discussing \u201ccommon-sense gun laws,\u201d the first ones they highlighted were universal background checks and red flag laws.<\/p>\n

Setting aside any question of the constitutionality of such measures, they tend to have broad public support in national polls, so it\u2019s no wonder that gun control advocates focus on them as the signature examples of what they call \u201ccommon sense gun control.\u201d<\/p>\n

But the overwhelming majority of gun control laws that gun control groups advance don\u2019t turn on whether someone has been vetted through background checks or training courses. They instead consist of outright bans of all sorts of firearms and accessories. Or they make buying firearms far more costly. Or they restrict the right to carry those firearms as much as possible.<\/p>\n

Thus, when Newsom claims that \u201cCalifornia\u2019s gun safety approach prioritizes regulating who can access firearms rather than imposing a blanket ban on lawful gun ownership,\u201d that is a total falsehood. We will use California as the model here, as its laws prove the lie of \u201ccommon sense gun control.\u201d<\/p>\n

Increasing Financial Barriers to the Second Amendment<\/h5>\n

One of the major ways California attempts to block access to the Second Amendment is by erecting considerable financial barriers to the right.<\/p>\n

As I argued in\u00a0a recent amicus brief<\/a>\u00a0on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation and other gun rights groups, a good way to zero in on all of these expenses involved in acquiring a firearm is by comparing what a new gun owner would pay for a gun in California compared to most other states. I\u2019ll borrow from that brief here.<\/p>\n

Imagine someone buying a gun for the first time in California who has no criminal record, nor anything else that would block her from buying a gun. According to Newsom\u2019s press release, then, she should have no trouble getting a gun, because as it claims, \u201cCalifornia\u2019s gun safety approach prioritizes regulating who can access firearms.\u201d Our aspiring gun owner will quickly learn just how untrue that is.<\/p>\n

First, she will have to choose a firearm. In most states, the most popular choice would be a GLOCK handgun, as they are some of the best-selling and reliable handguns in the country. Unfortunately, California has\u00a0effectively banned<\/a>\u00a0the sale of GLOCK handguns effective July 1, 2026. So if our aspiring gun owner is buying after that date, she will have to make a different choice. (That sales ban was ostensibly because the guns are too easy to convert to full auto, though the shooting that inspired the GLOCK ban was\u00a0committed by a convicted felon that Newsom\u2019s policies released from prison<\/a>\u00a0several years early.)<\/p>\n

Besides the new GLOCK sales ban, California also bans the sale of most of the handguns available in the rest of the country through its\u00a0Unsafe Handgun Act<\/a>. That law requires that all handguns sold in the state have unpopular \u201cfeatures\u201d like magazine disconnect mechanisms and loaded chamber indicators that are usually not present in the same handguns sold in other states.\u00a0A limited selection of handguns is available<\/a>, so our aspiring gun owner will have to pick from those unless she wants to pay much more to buy an off-roster handgun from the secondhand market.<\/p>\n

Suppose our aspiring gun owner settles on, for instance, the compact version of the Walther PDP that\u00a0is included<\/a>\u00a0on California\u2019s roster. Besides meeting the roster\u2019s requirements, the California version will be less capable compared to those sold in most other states because the magazines it comes with will be limited to ten rounds. Despite being an inferior version, it will also cost more, because designing a handgun to meet California\u2019s additional \u201cfeature\u201d requirements adds expense.<\/p>\n

Bass Pro Shops, a major retailer that sells firearms, demonstrates this well on their website. As of December 29, 2025, a standard compact Walther PDP sold for $529.98, but when the California-compliant version is selected on the same webpage, the price jumps to $649.00. So already, our aspiring gun owner is paying\u00a0about $119 more<\/strong>\u00a0than she would in Arizona, Nevada, and most other states.<\/p>\n

\"\"
The standard version of the PDP compact sold for about $530 during the holiday season.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"
The California-compliant version, however, went for about $650.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

But the financial burdens are just beginning. For one, California requires a background check on every firearm purchase. Yet even though the state chooses to impose this burden on its citizens, it also piles on fees. California\u2019s background check system\u00a0requires a $31.19 Dealer Record of Sale fee, a $1 Firearms Safety Act Fee, and a $5 Safety and Enforcement fee<\/a>. In total, for a background check that is free in other states, Californians\u00a0must pay $37.19<\/strong>\u00a0every time they purchase firearms.<\/p>\n

Additionally, in 2023, California enacted\u00a0an 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition<\/a>. This tax applies in addition to standard sales tax, and adds\u00a0another $71.39<\/strong>\u00a0to the price of our aspiring gun owner\u2019s Walther PDP pistol. She will also have to pay it each time she subsequently purchases ammunition.<\/p>\n

(Newsom, who now pretends to support the Second Amendment,\u00a0called that excise tax a \u201csin tax.\u201d<\/a>\u00a0That\u2019s an odd thing to say for someone who allegedly respects the right to keep and bear arms.)<\/p>\n

Finally, because it\u2019s the first firearm she is purchasing, our aspiring gun owner must also obtain a Firearm Safety Certificate, which is acquired by passing a 30-question multiple choice test on firearms facts and safety rules. The card is good for five years. Whether such a requirement is sensible or not can be debated, but it adds yet\u00a0another $25<\/strong>\u00a0in expense.<\/p>\n

In total then, factoring in the price difference of the California-compliant version of the gun, the background check fee, the excise tax, and the price of the Firearms Safety Certificate, our aspiring gun owner\u00a0will pay $252.58 more<\/strong>\u00a0for her compact Walther PDP than she would in most other states thanks to California\u2019s hostility to the Second Amendment. Considering that a better version of the same model costs about $530 in other states, that\u2019s a nearly 50% premium just to exercise the same right in California.<\/p>\n

If our aspiring gun owner practices enough and feels ready to begin carrying a firearm in public, the process of getting a California carry permit will cost her hundreds of dollars more and will include livescan fingerprinting, a police interview, a 16-hour training course, and sometimes even a psychological exam.<\/p>\n

If she lives in Santa Clara County, one of the worst offenders, the total expense of obtaining a carry permit will rise to about $2,000. (Second Amendment Foundation\u00a0has sued<\/a>\u00a0over this issue.) In other counties, the expense of getting a permit may be \u201conly\u201d around $500 to $600, but wait times can take over a year. The California Penal Code sets a 120-day time limit for processing permits, but Attorney General Rob Bonta has taken no action to enforce the law against the many counties and cities that blatantly violate that statutory time limit.<\/p>\n

All this is ironic coming from a state which\u00a0sued the City of Huntington Beach<\/a>\u00a0for implementing a simple voter ID requirement, calling it a racist effort to disenfranchise people of color. If requiring an ID to vote is racist, then what does that make California\u2019s burdens on the Second Amendment?<\/p>\n

\n
Newsom\u2019s California restricts everything Alex Pretti was doing<\/span><\/h5>\n<\/div>\n

Newsom\u2019s support for Alex Pretti\u2019s Second Amendment rights is especially ironic considering that everything Alex Pretti was doing is illegal in California, or would be if Newsom had his way.<\/p>\n

Alex Pretti carried a version of the SIG SAUER P320 that would be illegal for regular citizens to posses in California because it has a threaded barrel. California treats semiautomatic pistols with threaded barrels as\u00a0banned \u201cassault weapons.\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

\"pretti
According to the federal government, this is the firearm carried by Alex Pretti.<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Pretti\u2019s magazines are also presumably standard capacity P320 magazines, meaning they hold 17 rounds. Those too would be\u00a0banned in California<\/a>\u00a0where magazines are limited to a maximum of ten rounds.<\/p>\n

To the extent that Pretti was carrying at a \u201cprotest\u201d (that is how the government has characterized what was happening at the time), then that too is\u00a0against a law Newsom supported and signed<\/a>\u00a0which bans carry firearms at all public gatherings. Fortunately, that particular aspect of the law was\u00a0struck down by the Ninth Circuit<\/a>, at least at the preliminary injunction stage. The state continues to defend the law in court.<\/p>\n

Aside from public gatherings, the same law also restricts carry at almost every public place besides streets and sidewalks. That includes parks and playgrounds, the wilderness of state parks, any place that serves alcohol, hospitals, public transportation, banks, museums, stadiums, and many more. The state even enacted a \u201cvampire rule<\/a>\u201d which banned carry on all private property held open to the public unless the owner posts a sign saying otherwise, though the Supreme Court\u00a0appears set to strike down<\/a>\u00a0such laws soon. Various aspects of Newsom\u2019s law are preliminarily enjoined as the litigation proceeds, but most of it is still in effect.<\/p>\n

All of these location restrictions are despite the fact that it has been definitively proven that Americans with carry permits\u00a0almost never commit crimes<\/a>. In fact, in Second Amendment Foundation\u2019s litigation against Newsom\u2019s so-called \u201csensitive places\u201d law restricting carry, we put forward statistical evidence supporting this argument to make the point that California\u2019s stated safety concerns regarding the right to carry were baseless. The California DOJ didn\u2019t even try to rebut our evidence, effectively conceding the point. This led the district court to conclude that \u201c[s]imply put, CCW permit holders are not the gun wielders legislators should fear.\u201d<\/p>\n

There is simply no rational reason for\u00a0California to restrict carry so broadly<\/a>, as it vets everyone who gets a carry permit and they don\u2019t commit crimes. The motivation isn\u2019t safety, it is animus. California hates the Second Amendment and everyone who exercises it. And that would have included Alex Pretti if he lived in the state.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h5>\n

This article only scratches the surface of what \u201ccommon sense gun control\u201d has meant in California. Just recently, California restricted most online shopping for firearm accessories, making it more difficult and costly to purchase them. It also recently enacted a\u00a0barrel background check law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The state also has an ammunition background check regime that costs $5 each time you purchase ammunition, and erroneously rejects one in ten people who attempt use it, as Second Amendment Foundation discussed in\u00a0our amicus brief in the relevant case<\/a>. For every prohibited person the background check law stops from buying ammunition,\u00a0it wrongfully turns away over 400 law-abiding people<\/em>. Newsom\u2019s Attorney General is, naturally, defending the law in court.<\/p>\n

And, of course, the state bans bans common rifles, common handguns, and suppressors (even if the prospective buyer is willing to register them federally). I am probably forgetting a variety of other restrictions, as there are just too many to recall.<\/p>\n

Each of these measures have the strong support of the national gun control groups, all of which praise California effusively and give it\u00a0top marks<\/a>. They want California-style gun laws to go national.<\/p>\n

In sum, the claim that California\u2019s gun laws \u201cprioritize regulating who can access firearms,\u201d as Newsom\u2019s press release claimed, is an abhorrent lie. California restricts every aspect of gun ownership, and would no doubt ban it entirely if the Supreme Court allowed it to do so. Because it can\u2019t do that, it makes guns much costlier to obtain, costlier to carry, and restricts where you can carry them if you go through all the trouble and expense of getting a carry permit.<\/p>\n

We can certainly have a debate about the efficacy of things like background checks or red flag laws. But the idea that those are the core policies of gun control activists is pure gaslighting. Rather, those are the popular Trojan horse policies they use to convince the public to put them into power. Once they have that power, they restrict guns for all law-abiding citizens as much as they possibly can.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The \u2018Common Sense Gun Control\u2019 Lie: How Antigun States Restrict Access to the Second Amendment. Events in Minnesota\u00a0have created some strange temporary bedfellows. An opponent of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement\u2019s efforts, Alex Pretti, was shot and killed by federal officers. Because he happened to be carrying a firearm while protesting against deportations, the typical … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=114879"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114879\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":114880,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114879\/revisions\/114880"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=114879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=114879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=114879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}