We reported Tuesday on how California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) got hit with a much-needed reality check by CBS Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell of all people during an interview he did disparaging the Second Amendment and its proponents in the aftermath of the horrific Monterey Park mass shooting Saturday night that left eleven dead and nine injured.
“Nothing about this is surprising. Everything about this is infuriating,” he stated to O’Donnell Monday before also declaring that “the Second Amendment is becoming a suicide pact.”
In turn, O’Donnell politely but firmly informed a smug-looking Newsom that there are “many people in this country that support the Second Amendment and are lawful gun owners.”
But another clip circulating on social media from their exchange where Newsom is expanding on his comments actually makes him look even worse, not just because of what he claims about Republicans supposedly “not giving a damn” about children getting hurt and killed during shooting tragedies, but because of what’s going on directly behind him as the cameras were rolling.
See if you can spot it:
Yep, that’s Gavin Newsom being trailed by a taxpayer-funded armed security detail as he brags about everything the state of California has done under his watch to curb gun rights.
You absolutely could not make this up if you tried.
“Saying the Second Amendment is a ‘suicide pact’ while literally being protected by armed security guards is the most elitist, unaware, on-brand thing Gavin Newsom has said,” one astute Twitter user observed. “Ranks right ahead of his fancy dining during the covid lockdown. This guy truly is unique.”
Isn’t it fascinating how the harsh infringements on your Constitutional rights that Democrats often push for usually only apply to the common man and never to them? As pointed out above, we saw this all during the coronavirus pandemic, especially in the more heavily restricted states (blue states) like California where Democratic officials like Newsom and then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were routinely found to be not practicing what they preached as it related to “keeping their fellow citizens safe” during the pandemic.
We also saw this, for example, in Minneapolis as the Democrat-run city council there pushed in the summer of 2020 to defund the police and yet were found to have armed, taxpayer-funded security due to alleged “threats” they were supposedly receiving over their public statements in support of “reimagining” (read: getting rid of) the Minneapolis police force.
It’s always the same old song and dance with these people, with the rules for thee but not for me mentality and all that. This is why whenever the inevitable calls from the left to chip away at more rights start, rational people should push back using every legal tool at their disposal to counter their attempts – with the most important tool, of course, being their voice.
As any Second Amendment supporter in the state can tell you, California has a lot of laws on the books; far too many of them aimed at turning a fundamental right into a criminal offense. Meanwhile, those accused of violent crimes are far too often treated as victims themselves; of circumstance if not the criminal justice system itself.
That may very well be the case when it comes to the man accused of murdering Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy Isaac Cordero last week. William Shae McKay had a criminal history dating back more than 20 years; including a 2021 conviction on charges of false imprisonment, receiving stolen property and evading police officers. Unbelievably, McKay was still allowed to post bail and leave jail after that conviction in November of 2021; a decision that local law enforcement believe had a direct link to Cordero’s murder a little more than a year later.
He was facing a third-strike sentence of 25 years to life in prison, but his attorneys asked for a new trial and that one of his strikes be dismissed.
McKay’s bail was reduced from $950,000 to $500,000 while his case was pending, and he was released on bail in March. In October, a warrant was issued for his arrest when McKay failed to make a court appearance. The trial judge in his case was Cara D. Hutson.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco and San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson said the justice system had failed Deputy Cordero.
In a news release, Anderson noted his office opposed the bail reduction as well as the motion to dismiss a prior strike.
“Our office upheld our oath of pursuing justice by prosecuting convicted felon McKay in November of 2021, however a failure in the process to separate McKay from society and hold him accountable for his crimes has resulted in the tragic loss of a law enforcement deputy,” Anderson said.
Cordero’s uncle, Carlos Padilla, echoed his own frustration with the system and Judge Hutson.
“The law that he swore to uphold took his life,” Padilla said. “They said ‘You’re being dropped in the battlefield,’ and then they abandoned him. It’s so heart-wrenching that the same people we allow to be in office can do something like this.”
Hutson, a Democrat, was appointed to the San Bernardino County Superior Court bench in 2007 by then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Before that, she worked as a deputy district attorney from 1994 until her appointment. She was last elected in June 2022 when she ran unopposed.
Serious crimes that could have resulted in decades behind bars, but thanks to the judge’s largesse, McKay was able to post bail post-conviction and stroll out of custody free as a bird.
California lawmakers are set to resume their attacks on legal gun owners in just a few short days, with restricting the right to carry one of their top priorities for the new year. Ensuring that violent offenders like McKay stay behind bars, on the other hand, isn’t much of a concern for the politicians intent on carving up our Second Amendment rights into a never-ending series of non-violent possessory crimes. In the twisted worldview of the anti-gun left, guys like McKay are always deserving of another chance, while peaceable gun owners are considered a threat until or unless they’re disarmed.
“I decided I did not want to be required to comply with this,” Mr. Truslow said of the law, which went into effect Jan. 1.
San Jose’s law, the first of its type in the nation, mandates that gun owners in the city of nearly one million have insurance covering costs related to accidental gunshot injuries or deaths. The law doesn’t require policies to cover criminal misuse of firearms.
The law was pushed by former Mayor Sam Liccardo after a series of mass shootings in the area. Mr. Liccardo, a Democrat who recently stepped down due to term limits, said he thinks the law ultimately will result in insurers offering lower premiums to gun owners who safely store and handle their firearms, much like auto insurers give discounts for good driving.
Former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo says he began to push for the insurance law after mass shootings in the area.PHOTO: HAVEN DALEY/ASSOCIATED PRESS
“Just as insurance was a mechanism to dramatically improve road safety . . . insurance with guns could similarly have that effect,” Mr. Liccardo said.
Catch up on the headlines, understand the news and make better decisions, free in your inbox every day.
Gunowners who object to the law, including Mr. Truslow, said they already took safety measures such as keeping their firearms in safes. City officials should spend more time focusing on fighting gun violence, he said.
Gun-rights groups filed lawsuits in response to the ordinance last year before it went into effect. A federal judge tossed out the suits but said that some of the claims could be refiled because the complaints had been drafted before the U.S. Supreme Court decided an important Second Amendment case last summer known as New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
In response, gun-control advocates in state and local governments have looked toward new approaches that could hold up in court. California last year passed a law allowing individuals to sue gun makers over violations of the state’s gun restrictions, basing on a Texas law allowing private individuals to sue to enforce abortion restrictions.
New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy in December signed a law akin San Jose’s insurance law, which requires at least $300,000 in insurance coverage related to injury, death, or property damage for people with permits to carry guns in public.
The San Jose law applies to all gun owners, regardless of whether they carry them in public.
Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, said his organization is preparing new legal challenges to San Jose on Second Amendment grounds. “This is just a way to make it too costly to own a gun,” Mr. Michel said.
SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS
Should all gun owners be required to carry liability insurance? Why or why not? Join the conversation below.
A city spokeswoman didn’t respond to a request for comment.
Advocates on both sides of America’s gun-rights debate say they are watching the San Jose law closely. The measure’s success or failure could determine whether such laws are adopted elsewhere.
A California state lawmaker has proposed a bill to require gun-liability insurance statewide.
Obtaining the insurance required by San Jose likely won’t be difficult for most people, said Janet Ruiz, a spokeswoman for the Insurance Information Institute, an industry trade group. Most homeowners- and renters-insurance policies cover the type of liability described in the new law, she said.
A vigil at San Jose City Hall in 2021 honored victims of a shooting.PHOTO: AMY OSBORNE/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
A few insurers offer stand-alone gun-liability policies, but most don’t, according to the institute.
Mr. Liccardo said the law doesn’t call for San Jose’s police department to proactively check whether people with firearms have insurance. But gun owners will be required to carry proof of insurance with their firearms much as drivers do, he said.
As one example, he said officers could check if they responded to a domestic violence call and a gun was present. Those not in compliance face fines of up to $1,000.
Accidental shootings accounted for 1% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. in 2020, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The number of accidental shooting deaths ticked up in 2020, but in general has been falling for decades, according to the CDC.
California Democrats returned to Sacramento this week with a gun-safety agenda following a near-record year for U.S. mass shootings. But their legal obstacles loom higher than ever.
The Supreme Court this summer invalidated one of the state’s longstanding concealed carry requirements, and a federal judge in San Diego has blocked a series of the state’s restrictive gun policies. Meanwhile, Second Amendment groups will sue “anything that walks,” said Democratic Assemblymember Jesse Gabriel, who chairs the Legislature’s Gun Violence Prevention Working Group.
As the challenges mount, it’s up to lawmakers to find a way around them, said Bob Hertzberg, a former California legislator whose bill could be heading to the Supreme Court.
“We have these horrible deaths every year,” Hertzberg said. “How do we as lawmakers try to figure out creative ways that reduce this horrible tragedy?”
A group of Democratic legislators insist they are unfazed by the legal threats as they pursue laws they know other blue states are likely to emulate. They’ve already introduced at least five bills, with more on the way. Here’s what you need to know about California gun safety advocates’ hopes for 2023 — and the obstacles they may face.
This year, advocates hope to tax the gun industry and defy the Supreme Court
Sacramento veterans and newcomers were quick to begin pushing gun laws in the new legislative session, with bills that target gun violence and the firearms industry. Catherine Blakespear, a first-year state senator, submitted one on the day she was sworn in.
Blakespear’s Senate Bill 8 is an open-ended intent bill that will seek to prevent gun violence; the senator plans to fill it in with details in the coming weeks.
Other lawmakers are advocating for do-overs of past legislation. State Sen. Anthony Portantino is back with Senate Bill 2, which is meant to protect the state’s concealed-carry law following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in New York. His last effort to do so failed narrowly in the Assembly after some lawmakers questioned whether the bill would hold up in court. And Gabriel is again championing a tax on the sale of firearms and ammunition to fund gun violence prevention initiatives.
Gabriel also has a new bill that would allow Californians to add themselves to a firearms Do Not Sell list, and another that would prohibit those under domestic violence protection orders from owning firearms for three years after their order ends.
Even if the proposals make it out of the Legislature, their long-term fate will hinge on surviving a thorny legal landscape.
“If and when we pass this tax on the sale of guns and ammunition, I have no doubt that it will be challenged in court,” Gabriel said. “But the fact that someone’s going to file a lawsuit … that’s not a reason not to move forward.”
Phil Ting, a Democratic assemblymember from San Francisco, said he expects to see a legislative push this year to make more research on firearms and gun violence publicly available.
“The gun lobby’s pushed very hard to have no information,” Ting said. “They’d like this to be perceived as individual accidents and incidents, when we know that the more guns there are on the street, the more deaths there are.”
States must face reality of a 6-3 conservative Supreme Court majority
Lawmakers in California and elsewhere say they are eager to impose restrictions on guns after nearly 650 mass shootings across the country last year, the second-highest number on record. But the reality is that the legal landscape has never been more hostile to firearm regulations at the state level.
“California is, more than ever before, having a problem defending its gun control laws,” said Adam Winkler, a constitutional law expert at UCLA. “A lot of widely accepted, long-standing rules are now being called into question nationwide.”
In June, the Supreme Court didn’t just strike down a New York law that restricted concealed-carry permits in the state. The majority opinion in the Bruen case, backed by the 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, opened the door to challenges on a wide range of Second Amendment policies that restrict firearms. Gun rights advocates have already taken up the invitation, bringing challenges across the nation that are likely to prevail under the newly established framework set by the Supreme Court.
Just about any new legislation in California faces a likely challenge from advocates such as the Second Amendment Foundation.
“California and other states need to repeal anti-gun rights laws, not pass new ones, or we beat them in court,” said Alan Gottlieb, the organization’s executive vice president.
First up may be Senate Bill 1327, a bill modeled after a Texas law that allows private lawsuits against those who receive or help provide abortions. Newsom signed SB 1327 into law last year, with the express intent of inviting a legal challenge. As expected, California’s new law has already been overturned in federal court, and Hertzberg said he expects it to make its way to the Supreme Court.
Newsom versus Benitez — again.
California’s efforts to tighten gun restrictions have hit a wall with federal Judge Roger Benitez, an appointee of former President George W. Bush who overturned the state’s assault weapons ban in 2021. Benitez has earned a reputation for making controversial statements about gun policy, including the false claim that vaccines have killed more Americans than mass shootings.
For gun safety advocates, Benitez is a scary figure: Second Amendment groups have strategically filed lawsuits in his district, they say, because they know he will likely hand them a favorable ruling. He lurks in the minds of lawmakers, too: Gabriel said Benitez is “a great example of an extremely activist judge with views that are far outside of the mainstream.”
Several of Benitez’s rulings overturning state gun laws were under appeal before Bruen. Now, they’ve been sent back to him. “Years of litigation … and we’re right back down to square one with the same judge whose opinions were already overturned by the Ninth Circuit,” said Ari Freilich, Gifford Law Center’s State Policy Director.
When Benitez struck down SB 1327, it was déjà vu for both himself and Newsom, who have publicly antagonized each other. The governor blasted the judge after he initially overturned the assault weapons ban, calling him a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association.”
“We need to call this federal judge out,” Newsom said at a June 2021 news conference. “He will continue to do damage. Mark my words.”
Rethinking a century of gun policy
While lawmakers wait for the Supreme Court to clarify its interpretation of the Second Amendment, Benitez is already forcing state lawyers to defend California’s slate of restrictions. Last month, he asked lawyers to draft a 97-year history of gun restrictions in the state — beginning with the ratification of the Second Amendment and ending 20 years after the ratification of the 14th.
The request emerged from the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen, which stated that judges must employ an interpretation “rooted in the Second Amendment’s text, as informed by history.”
The judge will use this history to aid his analysis — and to help determine the fate of gun safety laws in California, new and old.
Bruen has forced attorneys across the country to spend valuable time doing historical research on Second Amendment law, Winkler said. He called the surge in litigation a “huge burden” for state DOJs across the country.
The California DOJ declined to answer questions regarding the agency’s workload. But in a statement to POLITICO, a department spokesperson confirmed that the Supreme Court’s decision triggered a range of lawsuits.
For state justice departments across the country, Winkler said, more lawsuits mean more work.
“They have limited resources, and they have to expend those resources defending this gun law, rather than pursuing other cases,” Winkler said. “There’s only so many people you have working in the office.”
U.S.A. – -(Ammoland.com)- “According to their official platform, the California Republican Party believes the United States Constitution guarantees the right of its citizenry to keep and bear arms and that the state’s gun control laws only serve to disarm law-abiding citizens, not criminals,” Gun Owners of California notes in a blog post decrying the state GOP’s deliberate indifference to acting on its pledges. “They are on the record as opposing any further gun control legislation and support the right of all California citizens to own and bear guns and ammunition for any lawful purpose.”
“If this is the case, then why would the California Republican Party continue to snub the hundreds of thousands of gun owners in the state?” GOC asks. “Why does the political party – the one that supposedly is the champion of the Constitution – treat California’s gun owners like annoying flies to be swatted away?”
Probably because equivocal platitudes Golden State Republicans offer to establish their 2A bona fides with those who don’t look deeper than rah-rah sloganeering are just that. The late RNC Chair Lee Atwater is reputed to have asked “Who else are gun owners going to vote for?” when informed performance didn’t live up to the promise. Being allowed to continually get away with that by “lesser of two evils” gun voters means there’s no incentive to change and to walk the talk.
Those in it for personal and political advancement will say whatever it takes to win. When they perceive that no longer works to their advantage, they guiltlessly reverse polarity and do what they think will serve them best, and the hell with those who brought them to the dance in the first place. Besides, who else are gun owners going to vote for, right?
None of this is news to California’s activist gun owners, of which I was one when I lived there. And in many cases, the misinformation being fed to them comes from groups they look to for leadership.
So why should California Republicans (and those from other states where they think they can get away with it) do anything more than give lip service to gun owners, assuming they even need to do that? After all, they’ve been getting away with serial betrayals for years.
“Pete Wilson has been strong and reliable on gun laws,” said Bob Walker, president of Handgun Control Inc. in Washington. “I think Gov. Wilson has always had a reputation for moderation. We think this is a very moderate and sensible approach to the problem.”
“Many owners of the named firearms did not comply with the law, so Attorney General Dan Lundgren allowed persons to register them after the deadline. Fearing criminal penalties for possessing an illegal firearm, many owners reported their firearms under Lundren’s ‘amnesty’ program. In August 1998, however, a California appellate court held the Attorney General could not legally allow the gun owners to register their weapons after the March 1992 deadline. That ruling came after many owners had already identified themselves by registering late. The Attorney General had led the law-fearing lambs into a trap: citizens had voluntarily informed the state that they were felons.”
“We’re coming up on the 24th anniversary of Iron Duke’s outdrawing the gun lobby to enact the nation’s first assault weapons ban — an action hardly anyone could have predicted, given his political past. Deukmejian owed his gubernatorial election in 1982, in large part, to gun owners.”
So, with Republicans like these, who needs Democrats? (Sorry, GOC, if you’re going to insist there are “many freedom-loving Democrats,” it’s on you to show us their votes don’t enable the tyranny-loving kind. If owning a gun was all it took, we’d have no better pals than Lon Horiuchi and David Chipman.
(The Center Square) – On July 1, 2022, California Penal Code section 31910 was revised. The change required semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology. A microstamp acts like a fingerprint in identifying ammunition cartridges and the gun from which it
Anew era of gun sales is taking effect in California.
On July 1, 2022, California Penal Code section 31910 was revised. The change required semiautomatic pistols sold in California to have microstamping technology.
A microstamp acts like a fingerprint in identifying ammunition cartridges and the gun from which it was fired. The firing pin imposes an identifying stamp on the round’s primer as it’s discharged.
The revision now only requires one microstamp in the interior of the handgun instead of two. Supporters hoped that this change in the penal code would encourage manufacturers to employ the technology in their firearm products.
Attorney General Rob Bonta, along with the California Department of Justice, is proposing an additional rule to bolster the use of microstamping. The new rule proposes that the unique microstamp of every handgun in California be kept as a record with the Department of Justice to identify firearms used in criminal activity.
A statement released by the California Department of Justice addressed to “Firearm manufacturers and Interested Parties,” invites comments on specific questions “in developing new regulations to achieve the law’s objectives in the most effective manner.”
The department does not ask whether the rule should be made but rather poses questions on procedure once it is implemented. They invite input on questions such as:
Who is best suited to provide the microstamp to the DOJ?When should the microstamp be provided to the DOJ?How should the microstamp be provided to the DOJ?If a microstamp part needs to be replaced, should the regulated replacement part have the same microstamp as the original?
The department will accept comments from interested parties until 5:00 p.m. on Feb. 1, 2023.
BELLEVUE, WA —-(AmmoLand.com)- A California appeals court panel has unanimously denied a request from state Attorney General Rob Bonta for an immediate stay of an injunction in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation in a challenge of the state law allowing the state Department of Justice to share personal information about firearms owners with private researchers.
Bonta claimed the law, AB 173, “does not create a serious invasion of privacy.” The trial court disagreed, granting a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, thus placing a hold on the enforcement of the information-sharing law. The case is known as Barba, et.al. v. Bonta.
Second Amendment Foundation is joined in the lawsuit by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., California Gun Rights Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, Orange County Gun Owners PAC, Inland Empire Gun Owners PAC, and a private citizen, Ashleymarie Barba. They are represented by attorneys Bradley A. Benbrook and Stephen M. Duvernay with the Benbrook Law Group, PC in Sacramento.
“We’re delighted the appeals court panel unanimously rejected Bonta’s effort to set aside the preliminary injunction because the privacy of California gun owners is important, even if he thinks otherwise,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Bonta is determined to supply gun owner information to biased researchers who, we believe, will use it to promote additional restrictions on their Second Amendment-protected rights.”
Gottlieb dismissed arguments by Bonta that the researchers take steps to protect identifying information about gun owners.
“That’s not the point,” Gottlieb said. “The point of our challenge is that this information is being shared at all, especially with non-government entities. This isn’t just about Second Amendment rights. California’s law clearly threatens the privacy rights of gun owners.”
The lawsuit was filed because of a change in the California Penal Code that required the state DOJ to share private information on millions of gun owners in the state, with the California Firearm Violence Research Center and others.
About Second Amendment Foundation
The Second Amendment Foundation (www.saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms. Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 720,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.