Gavin Newsom Has A New Idea For Gun-Control

Gavin Newsom Has A New Idea For Gun-Control

Gavin Newsom Has A New Idea For Gun-Control

Gun-control legislation modeled after the Texas abortion law, according to Gavin Newsom, is a terrific idea! In a Saturday night news dump, Newsom issued the following statement.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) is looking to use a tactic from Texas’s controversial abortion law to target assault rifle sales in the Golden State.

Newsom on Saturday said he directed his staff to collaborate with the legislature and attorney general to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to file lawsuits for at least $10,000 “against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California.”

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” he added in a statement.

This is the same guy who, as the New York Times pointed out, had criticized the bill as an overreach on federal rights. But now, given he survived a recall election, everything old is new again. This time, Newsom is once again going after our Second Amendment rights. 

The governor’s vow to use California courts against gun violence followed the Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to let stand Texas’ ban on most abortions. The law allows private citizens to sue anyone who “aids or abets” an abortion performed after a fetal heartbeat can be detected. That development typically occurs around six weeks and often before women realize they are pregnant.

As Cameron wrote here, Newsom is already planning to turn California into a sanctuary state for abortions. Now he’s setting his sights on gun owners and manufacturers with this new gun-control idea. 

Do I need to point out that abortion is NOT a Constitutional right? Do I need to point out that owning arms IS a Constitutional right? Evidently Gavin needs yet another lesson in Constitution 101. 

The Firearms Policy Coalition responded to Newsom late last night. 

FPC will not only fight Newsom’s war on human rights head-on, we will also actively undermine it through cultural change and empowerment until his authoritarian policies are as irrelevant and impotent as Newsom himself. And Newsom’s unconstitutional ‘wish list’ may be entirely irrelevant soon anyway. Days from now we will be petitioning for Supreme Court review in our Bianchi v. Frosh lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” a legal scheme much like California’s. Bianchi is an ideal case for the Supreme Court to address these issues once and for all, and we look forward to continuing to execute our mission in the coming months and years.

If Gavin Newsom wants to play a game of constitutional chicken, we will prevail.

Gavin Newsom once again shows, with this gun-control effort, how tone-deaf he is regarding what is actually happening in California.

California businesses are dealing with hundreds of smash and grab attacks by criminals.

When they are caught, IF they are caught, most of those criminals are released without bail. Crime across California has skyrocketed. Furthermore, criminals are following people home and into hotels, and robbing them at gunpoint. 

Given all that is happening, and the rising crime, the LA Police Union issued a warning. 

“My message to anyone thinking about coming to Los Angeles, especially during the holiday season, is don’t,” Jamie McBride, the head of the LA Police Protective League, the union representing LAPD officers, said in a television interview.

Rather than addressing the rising crime issues and the escalation of smash and grab robberies, Gavin Newsom sets his sights on legal gun owners and manufacturers. Is this a stunt, as State Senator Brian Dahle believes it is? Or is Newsom serious about gun-control and will fiddle madly while California Rome burns down around him? It’s probably a combination of both. 

Welcome Instapundit Readers!

Feature Photo Credit: Pistol American flag via Pixabay, cropped and modified

Written by

  • Scott says:

    The failure of the people of California to recall that scumbucket has obviously emboldened him to go full on tyrant..

    You get what you vote for…

    • Jack says:

      Election fraud (ballot harvesting), illegal aliens, etc, is legal in Commiefornia. Larry Elder more than likely won the recall.

      • Scott says:

        You’re not wrong.. But then again, there are a lot of citiots (city dwelling idiots) that do support him whole-heartedly.. along with plenty of illegals..

    • GWB says:

      A Republican president who really wanted to shake things up would invoke the “republican form of gov’t” clause as it relates to Oregon and California. Simply being able to vote for your form of destructor is not the essence of “republican form of gov’t.”

  • Cameron says:

    Democrats are obsessed with taking away rights from the law abiding. They have a fanatical view that the only reasons criminals misbehave is because the “Right” law has not been spoken into existence.

    And things like this are why my brother got the hell out of CA. His gun collection magically turned him into a felon if he had stuck around.

  • Jack says:

    The CPUSA have convinced themselves that the ‘Constitution’ (Roe v Wade) gives females the ‘right’ to murder. That was all I heard after the Texas decision.

  • John C. says:

    Establishing the legal principle that the maker of a legal object can be sued for the misuse of that object by a third party will not merely destroy the gun industry; it will destroy most industries, most notably the auto industry. Far more people are killed by automobiles each year than with guns, and the auto industry has far deeper pockets.

  • Edward Lunny says:

    So, this policy will get very messy and very interesting. Using the ” logic ” behind Newsom’s proposal, any state government law, directive ,and or regulation any state employee that leads to injury or death allows the state to be sued for recompense for state responsibility. Hmmm.

  • I am still trying to figure who will be sued. How many people are making ghost guns and assault weapons in California? Even 50? And how does suing them work better than enforcing the existing criminal statutes?

    • Cameron says:

      “SHUT UP!,” they explained.

    • GWB says:

      They are going to sue the makers of 80% lowers and the distributors of 3d printer designs for lowers and such.

      Transferring an un-serialized weapon to anyone else is already illegal.

      He’s trying to adopt the lawfare approach TX just enabled with its anti-abortion law.

  • GWB says:

    What gun company thinks it’s necessary to tell you where to grip a handgun?

    those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets
    If someone is “putting” un-serialized firearms “on the streets”, then they’re already breaking state and federal law. It is illegal to transfer un-serialized weapons without serializing them. PERIOD. Of course the “assault weapons” bit is just hoplophobe fear-mongering. But, it’s likely that is already illegal, if you’re using “on the streets” to mean “into the hands of criminals” (which you know he’s implying.

    ban abortion and endanger lives
    The logical inconsistency here is monstrous. And the people who uncritically repeat it are legion.

    deadly weapons of war
    Redundant (all weapons of war are deadly) and silly (all weapons are weapons of war) and fear-mongering (war!!), and utterly without any real meaning.

    Is this a stunt…? Or is Newsom serious about gun-control…?

  • Sam L. says:

    Do I need a serial number on my club?? (Asking for a firend.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner