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.
