With several new gun bills becoming law in California in 2026, gun rights advocates and gun control supporters have sharply different views on the reasoning behind the legislation and its effects.

The new laws address how firearms are stored in homes, expand the list of banned guns, and streamline gun violence restraining orders.

GV Wire spoke with Jeff Silvester of Hanford-based gun rights firm Imperium Strategic Group and Ethan Murray, state policy attorney for gun control group Giffords Law Center.

“I don’t think we need any more gun control laws. What we need is for politicians, lawyers and law enforcement to enforce the laws already on the books, keep criminals off the streets, reduce crime overall, and reduce the perceived need for more firearm laws,” Silvester said.

Meanwhile, Giffords ranks California first in the nation for the strength of its gun laws.

“California is the pinnacle of the kind of gun safety laws we wish the entire country would adopt, and California’s story tells why,” Murray said.

The namesake of the Giffords Law Center, former Arizona Congressmember Gabby Giffords, is herself a gun owner, Murray said. He added that the Second Amendment calls for firearms to be “well-regulated.”

“All rights come with responsibilities, and that’s what we believe,” Murray said. “We believe gun ownership comes with responsibilities, and we try to pass laws that help protect people from the dangers of firearms.”

Related Story: US Supreme Court to Weigh Law Barring Drug Users From Owning Guns

Key New California Gun Laws in 2026

Laws set to take effect in 2026 include:

SB 53 requires firearms to be stored in a locked safe in the home. Previously, the requirement applied only when children were present.

AB 1127 bans several handguns beginning July 1, 2026. Certain firearms, including some Glock models, would no longer be allowed due to a trigger design that lawmakers say makes them easier to convert from semi-automatic to fully automatic.

AB 1078 limits firearm purchases to three per month starting April 1, 2026. It replaces a one-gun-per-month law struck down by the courts. The law also allows non-Californians to hold a California concealed carry weapons permit.

SB 899 streamlines the process for courts to enforce gun violence restraining orders, requiring some individuals to surrender their firearms.

SB 704 and AB 1263 require certain firearm transactions — including barrel guns and 3D-printed guns — to be conducted through a licensed dealer. Private barrel sales will no longer be allowed. A later phase, beginning July 1, 2027, will require background checks and registration.

AB 725 creates new reporting requirements for lost or stolen firearms, extending the rule to include lost or stolen gun parts. Violations may be charged as an infraction or misdemeanor.

How Many Guns Should You Buy at Once?

In June, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down California’s one-firearm-per-month purchase limit. The state responded by passing a new law limiting purchases to three firearms per month.

“This is another overstep by the government, telling us how it can ration our rights,” Silvester said. “The founders did not envision a time when the government could tell you that you could only go to church three times a month, and that directly applies to the Second Amendment.”

Murray said he had never previously heard the church comparison.

“Churches generally aren’t used in crimes and can’t be trafficked to weaponize other people,” Murray said. “We’re talking about guns here — products we know are dangerous when they get into the wrong hands.”

Murray said that “most people only need a single firearm,” adding that purchasing multiple guns at once raises concerns about trafficking.

Asked why someone would want to purchase multiple firearms at the same time, Silvester said, “There’s no answer needed, the fact that you want to know why is not relevant to my rights and my ability to defend myself.”

Storage: Safety Or Detriment?

Silvester opposes expanding firearm storage requirements to apply whenever anyone else is in the home, not just children.

“It really limits what you’re able to do in terms of self-defense for your family,” Silvester said.

Murray said locking firearms up adds an extra measure of safety.

“This is taking the next step forward, because we also know secure storage helps prevent suicides,” Murray said. “We’ve seen positive impacts from laws that require secure storage for adults as a suicide prevention measure.”

Under SB 53, the first two violations carry fines of up to $500, while a third offense would be charged as a misdemeanor.

Related Story: Supreme Court Rejects Mexico’s $10B Gun Lawsuit Against American Gun ...

Glocks Would Be Banned

Adding Glocks and similar handguns to the banned list because they could be converted is an overreach, Silvester said.

“We don’t really have all the numbers on how often this happens or who’s doing it,” Silvester said. “We’re attacking a self-defense tool that’s being misused in a very specific manner.”

Existing firearms would be grandfathered in under the law, Silvester said.

The law targets the cruciform trigger bar, which lawmakers and control advocates say makes certain firearms easier to convert into more dangerous weapons.

A semi-automatic firearm fires one bullet per trigger pull, while a fully automatic firearm continues firing as long as the trigger is depressed.

Murray said the law is about holding gun manufacturers accountable, though he acknowledged its overall impact remains uncertain.

“The next step in preventing gun violence in America is making sure we’re holding the gun industry accountable and pushing it to make decisions that make the country safer,” Murray said.

Murray also advocated for SB 899, which adds enforcement steps when a judge orders a person to relinquish firearms. He said the law allows courts to follow up within 48 hours to ensure compliance.

Related Story: America’s Newest Gun Owners Are Upending Preconceptions About Who Buys a Gun ...

Several Second Amendment Cases For SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear several Second Amendment cases in the coming term.

United States v. Hemani, a case out of Hawai‘i, asks whether restricting gun ownership for drug users violates the Constitution. The case was argued Oct. 20, but a decision has not been released.

Wolford v. Lopez, another Hawai‘i case, will determine whether concealed carry permit holders must obtain permission to carry firearms on private property open to the public. The case has not yet been heard. California has a similar law.