Category: California
64-year-old Anibal Hernandez Santana is facing state-level charges of assault with a deadly weapon, shooting into an occupied building and negligent discharge of a firearm, as well as the federal charges related to interfering with a federally licensed broadcast statios that led to him being taken into custody not long after he posted bond and left the Sacramento County jail on Saturday.
Though authorities have not officially said what Hernandez Santana’s alleged motive might have been, there are suspicions that the shooting was tied to ABC’s decision to yank Jimmy Kimmel off the air last week over his comments that portrayed the man accused of assassinating Charlie Kirk as a right-wing MAGA supporter of President Donald Trump.
Variety reports that Hernandez Santana’s social media contains a steady stream of anti-Trump postings, but Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros says Hernandez-Santana is also a big fan of gun control.
On X, Hernandez Santana has, among other things, spoken out in favor of California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines, advocated for limiting gun sales to single-shot rifles for adults under the age of 25 , and an outright ban on so-called assault weapons.
More recently, Hernandez Santana posted “Where is a good heart attack when we need it the most?? Please Join in my thoughts and prayers for the physical demise of our fearful leader,” and “The authoritarian oligarchy is now complete. CBS+ caving, big law firms in DC, the subservients FBI and AG, university presidents stepping own, fan boys SCOTUS, public radio, ICE goons. We are going to have to ‘fight like hell’. Rules don’t apply if election was stolen. FIGHT!”
To the best of my knowledge, not a single media outlet has reported on Hernandez Santana’s support for gun control, though the Sacramento ABC affiliate shared a post where he claimed to have started carrying a gun after Donald Trump was elected in 2016.
“I haven’t seen [the posts]… It’s not completely uncommon. I mean, I’m on social media a lot and reading comments and from both sides really, there are some comments that I wouldn’t say are extreme, but that show a lot of passion,” said [Hernandez-Santana’s attorney Mark] Reichel. “I understand the concern that people would have, but they’re not uncommon.”
With the FBI now involved, Reichel believes politics are at play.
“If his social media points are considered radical by you, I guess it depends on your perspective. There’s a lot of this stuff that’s said by the President and you’d have to consider that radical also,” said Reichel. “I think the President and the Trump Justice Department and Pam Bondi aren’t going to let this one go by… Of course, they’re going to grab it and try to bring it into federal court as soon as they can because they’ve got somebody who is an educated liberal who they believe shot at the building.”
I know that Reichel has a duty to defend his client, but c’mon now. It’s not Hernandez Santana’s social media posts that landed him behind bars. It’s the suspicion that he fired multiple shots at a television station just a few days after Kimmel was yeeted from the airwaves.
There are plenty of people on the left and the right who’ve taken issue with the implied threats by FCC Chair Brendon Carr to go after ABC and its parent company Disney, but as far as I know none of them decided to take out their frustrations by firing multiple shots at their local ABC station.
Hernandez Santana’s posts on X might help explain his mindset and motive if he is, in fact, responsible for the shooting, but I don’t think anyone has said his “radical” speech amounts to criminal activity in and of itself.
Hernandez Santana is entitled to his views on all kinds of issues, including his support for California’s gun control laws and a desire to see more restrictions on our Second Amendment rights.
But if the news media is going to highlight his prolific posts on X, they shouldn’t hide his many comments in support of gun control while highlighting his animosity towards Donald Trump and the current administration. Hernandez Santana isn’t just an “educated liberal”; he’s a staunch advocate for restricting our right to keep and bear arms who, according to authorities, had no qualms about using a gun of his own to target those he disagrees with.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to deflect, gaslight, spin, and lie about our Second Amendment rights.
Categories
Back when LA was a GREAT Place to live
Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is again pointing to the “homicide rate” rather than the number of residents killed with firearms in California as he continues his attempt to prove gun control is working.
He turned to the “homicide rate” after an NBC News anchor attempted to corner Sen. James Lankford (R) by claiming the “crime rate” in Oklahoma is “higher than the rate New York and California.”
Newsom reacted by posting to X: “Oklahoma’s homicide rate is 47% higher than California’s.”
What Newsom omitted are the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), showing that 3,209 people were killed with guns in California in 2023 while 814 people were killed with guns in Oklahoma in the same year.
By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Newsom did a similar thing last year, when he criticized gun violence in Missouri without mentioning that California had over two times the fatalities.
California has more gun control than any other state and is ranked Number One for gun control stringency by Mike Bloomberg-affiliated Everytown for Gun Safety.
However, FBI data showed California was also Number One in the nation for “active shooter incidents” in 2021 and 2023, despite having gun control upon gun control upon gun control.
AWR Hawkins is an award-winning Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and the writer/curator of Down Range with AWR Hawkins, a weekly newsletter focused on all things Second Amendment, also for Breitbart News. He is the political analyst for Armed American Radio, a member of Gun Owners of America, and the director of global marketing for Lone Star Hunts. He was a Visiting Fellow at the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal in 2010 and has a Ph.D. in Military History. Follow him on X: @awrhawkins. You can sign up to get Down Range at breitbart.com/downrange. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com.
Hell hath no fury like a crazy cat lady.
Catalina Island sits 26 miles off the coast of Southern California. Surrounded on all sides by crystal clear Pacific ocean, it is an incredibly popular destination for tourists, fishermen, and boaters. There is a resident bison herd of about 150, left behind after a 1930’s movie shoot, five native animal species, one Zane Grey Hotel, 4000 human residents, and 1800 deer, all shoved into 76 square miles.
The Catalina Island Conservancy, which oversees 48,000 acres of land, has reported that the isolated environment is in serious trouble, as native flora and fauna are getting absolutely decimated by the pesky and overbearing deer population. The deer were originally brought over to encourage an ideal hunting opportunity for Southern Californians in the 1930’s, but with no natural predators on the island, and California hunters dwindling, things got out of hand and the population exploded well over the 500 deer carrying capacity.
The goal is to maintain native fauna, replant the flora, and further prevent erosion caused by record rains the past year. First, they will need to begin a more aggressive deer management strategy to bring the population to an appropriate number. The Conservancy is proposing using a contractor, White Buffalo Inc, to utilize helicopters and riflemen to efficiently target and remove portions of the deer population—i.e. they are going to shoot and kill the deer. Aerial operations have proven effective in combating runaway populations of species throughout the world, including California’s Channel Islands, resulting in faster, ethical solutions.
Seems reasonable right?
Not to the local cat ladies. The Catalina Island Humane Society is the island’s only animal rescue shelter, and as of right now, only advertises cat adoption (no cats listed as of this writing), but they are raising hell. As soon as the Conservancy posted their plans to restore the island, the cat ladies declared war. A petition started making the rounds that told readers that the Conservancy planned to slaughter deer that belong to residents, whatever the hell that means. As of Monday morning there are 3500 signers of the petition and are pleading with State Fish and Wildlife (who helped plan this) to step in and “save” the deer. Irony so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Up until now, the island has had a set management plan in place in the form of 200 deer tags issued a year to members, but with the island’s capacity of 500 deer, there are about 1300 too many. With the record rains that hit the island this past year, the population is expected to boom, and planning ahead for massive drought, this won’t go well for the large population.
The Conservancy is faced with a very steep uphill battle. Not only will a group with “humane” and “society” in its title dredge up the usual army of online keyboard conservationists, but this being California, they will most likely gain the attention of every desperate politician wanting to virtue signal their way into reelection. Don’t be shocked to see an ensemble cast of Hollywood actors supporting non-science based conservation when they begin defending deer they will never see. The idea of AR-15 wielding hunters flying in on helicopters like Apocalypse Now (with or without “The Ride of the Valkyries” blaring) slaying Bambi’s mom will attract every group from PETA to Moms Against Braincells, or whatever they’re called.
The fact of the matter is, the Conservancy and Cal Fish and Wildlife have agreed on a solid plan to restore equilibrium. They understand that as stewards of the island, the habitat must be properly managed—not just for the wildlife, but for the inhabitants too. What the cat ladies are proposing is a plan made of make believe, where the deer will magically leave the island and everything will go back to normal. Culling, while not necessarily PR friendly, is a proven method of containment and control whether in South Africa, Texas, or California. In order to save the island and its native populations, the plan needs to be enacted fast, as winter storms will only prove more devastating, and next year’s drought will certainly make it worse.
Usually, we can assume that scientific-based conservation will win, but with this being California, don’t be shocked when cat ladies and public opinion dominate. This will be an interesting story to follow.
If there’s a big loser in Second Amendment-related court proceedings over the past few months, it has to be California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In fact, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 24 that the state’s ammunition background check law violated the Second Amendment and affirmed a district court’s order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law, Newsom shared some harsh words with the media.
“Strong gun laws save lives—and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said in a released statement. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition, and their voices should matter.”
Newsom’s frustration isn’t just with the decision on ammo background checks, however. To be sure, Newsom’s and California’s anti-gun regime have seen plenty of court losses as of late, and they have been dealt with especially harshly by the 9th Circuit Court—historically a bastion of anti-gun advocacy—in recent weeks.
For one, on June 20, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the California law limiting firearm purchases to just one every 30 days. This gun-rationing scheme, the court said, not only violated the Second Amendment but had no historic precedent as required by the Bruen doctrine.
“The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm,” the 9th Circuit ruling stated. “California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment, and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
Less than a month later, the 9th Circuit reversed a district court decision and upheld an earlier ruling that the Golden State’s law prohibiting advertising of any “firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors” is also unconstitutional.
“California has many tools to address unlawful firearm use and violence among the state’s youth,” the ruling stated. “But it cannot ban truthful ads about lawful firearm use among adults and minors unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors.”
Note that the big losses haven’t just been in the 9th Circuit Court, but also at the district court level. On July 1, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the state’s law banning nonresident carry permits is unconstitutional.
“Although California identifies a regulatory burden from potentially tens of thousands of new applications, the constitutional infringement pushes the balance of equities in Plaintiffs’ favor,” the ruling stated.
Ultimately, his recent court losses might have something to do with Newsom’s recent lie proclaiming he’s now a Second Amendment advocate.
“I’m not anti-gun at all,” Newsom said at the time. “I’m for just some gun safety common sense. I’m challenged by large-capacity magazine clips in urban centers, weapons of war sometimes outgunning the police. But otherwise, man, people have the right to bear arms, and I’ve got no ideological opposition to that at all.”
Hopefully, pretending not to be anti-gun made him feel a little better about all the bad beatings he’s been taking in court recently. He’s going to need it, as more lawsuits in the pipeline will continue to dismantle the state’s tangle of anti-gun laws.