By now, Americans should be well aware that California Governor Gavin Newsom struggles with the truth. Recently, the known fabulist took his act on the road to sit with Tennessee-based podcaster Shawn Ryan for an interview.
At the outset of the show, Ryan gifted the anti-gun governor a Sig P365 XMACRO semi-automatic handgun.
Newsom responded, “By the way, this is too cool. The fact that you would give me this. So, you just want the TSA to take this from me at the airport. I’m onto you man.”
Provided the gift was made as presented on the show, the politician appeared unaware that for such an interstate handgun transfer to comply with federal law would require a local federal firearms licensee (FFL or gun dealer) to ship the firearm to an FFL in California.
As a Californian, Newsom would then be subject to the not-so-Golden State’s 10-day waiting period and Firearm Safety Certificate requirement. The Firearm Safety Certificate procedure includes a written test, which could prove no small feat for someone with a well-documented, and seemingly severe, learning disability. Cal. Penal Code § 31640 does provide, “If the person taking the test is unable to read, the test shall be administered orally.”
Newsom went on to state,
This is fabulous. You know what, the last thing people would expect is that I respect this gift
…
I’m not anti-gun at all. I’m just for some gun safety, common sense, that I think the vast majority of folks to the right and the left agree. And I think we’ve lost a little touch with some common sense around background checks. I think there’s an age appropriateness. I do have some, I’m challenged by large capacity magazine clips in urban centers. And, uh, weapons of war that are out there sometimes outgunning the police
…
But otherwise, people have the right to bear arms and I got no ideological opposition to that at all.
Further, Newsom claimed,
I’m also deeply mindful and respectful of the Second Amendment and people’s Constitutional rights.
Despite these assertions, Newsom’s record in office leaves no doubt that – when given authority – he systematically uses it to undermine the rights of gun owners, including by advocating for the position there is no individual right under the Second Amendment at all.
In other words, his statements to Shawn Ryan about this “deep” respect for the Second Amendment and about not being anti-gun “at all” are another “pants on fire” episode. If anything, they are the exact opposite of the truth.
During his time as governor, Newsom has signed all manner of extreme gun control legislation. In just the last two years, Newsom signed legislation mandating the use of unworkable microstamping technology on pistols, approved an 11-percent excise tax on all firearms and ammunition, and flouted the landmark NRA-supported U.S. Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022) by enacting onerous new restrictions on the Right-to-Carry.
Moreover, Newsom has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to California’s state-run anti-gun propaganda factory to manufacture a scientific veneer to California politicians’ pre-existing anti-gun agenda.
However, gun owners need not quibble about Newsom’s individual gun control policies. That’s because the governor’s actions not only show he supports extreme gun control, the record indicates that he doesn’t believe Americans have an individual Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms at all.
From January 2004 to January 2011, Newsom was the mayor of San Francisco.
In 2005, the City by the Bay voted on Proposition H, which was a ballot measure to ban the possession of all handguns in the city. While the measure was approved by far-left San Francisco voters, it was struck down by the courts as a violation of state law after NRA challenged it.
To be clear, this was not a ban on the future sale or possession of handguns, it was a ban on all handguns, which means, had it stood, the firearms would either have had to be removed from the city or turned over to authorities (i.e., surrendered under duress).
A similar fact pattern was at issue in the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). The Court’s decision struck down Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban. In doing so, the Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms and that the scope of the right includes possessing firearms in common use for lawful purposes like self-defense – including handguns. Given that the District of Columbia is a federal enclave, the Heller decision applies to the federal government. The Court went on to make clear that the Second Amendment applies to states and local jurisdictions in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
Newsom did not take a formal position on Proposition H. However, his behavior after passage showed that he didn’t view the Second Amendment as any impediment to sweeping gun bans.
On January 30, 2006, Mayor Newsom sent a letter to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors to encourage them to impose the maximum penalty allowable under state law, including mandatory jail time, for those who violated the improper and unconstitutional gun ban.
The letter stated:
In accordance with Proposition H and in consultation with the Chief of Police, District Attorney, Sheriff and the City Attorney, we are calling for the maximum penalty under state law for city residents who violate this voter approved ordinance. As you review this important legislation, we recommend that the City and County of San Francisco enact a $1,000 fine for handgun forfeiture, with a minimum imprisonment in county jail of 90 days, not to exceed 6 months.
Let that sink in: Gavin Newsom demanded a mandatory sentence of imprisonment for the mere act of possessing any handgun under any circumstance in the jurisdiction over which he presided as mayor.
Further, as the Heller (2008) case was before the U.S. Supreme Court, Mayor Newsom’s city argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms.
In January 2008, Mayor Newsom’s San Francisco joined a handful of other cities, the United States Conference of Mayors, and the Legal Community Against Gun Violence (LCAV) in an amicus brief for the Court. The U.S. Conference of Mayors was a longtime supporter of handgun prohibition. LCAV is now a component of the Giffords gun control outfit, which also occasionally, and disingenuously, claims to be moderate when that is convenient to the politics of the moment.
San Francisco’s brief rejected the correct individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, claiming:
the Second Amendment was not intended to vest armed power in citizens acting outside of any governmental military effort—either federal or state. For the Framers of the Constitution, irregular bands of armed citizens were a threat to be countered, not a guarantor of their liberties.
The brief from Mayor Newsom’s city also claimed that even if the Second Amendment restrained the federal government in some manner, it did not restrict state or local authority in any way. The filing argued:
although the Court need not address the issue of the Second Amendment’s incorporation against the States or their subdivisions in this case, this Court’s precedents and the federalism-promoting purpose of the Second Amendment firmly establish that the Second Amendment imposes no barrier to state and local regulation of firearms.
In January 2010, Mayor Newsom’s San Francisco again joined an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in McDonald (2010), which was a challenge to Chicago’s handgun ban. The brief argued in favor of the ban and against incorporating the Second Amendment against the states. This outcome would have permitted states and local jurisdictions unfettered power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms (including the right to ban any class of firearms).
San Francisco’s brief claimed:
The [Second] Amendment's purpose makes clear that it is essentially a “federalism provision” designed to protect the States and their citizens from excessive federal power. In view of the Second Amendment's stated purpose, it makes no sense to incorporate the right to bear arms against the States.
…
At bottom, the Second Amendment right cannot be considered implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, so as to justify its incorporation under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
If that weren’t enough, in June 2023 Governor Newsom proposed a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution aimed at undermining the Second Amendment. The unpopular anti-rights amendment would turn the right to keep and bear arms into a government gate-kept privilege by criminalizing private firearm transfers. The proposal would also institute a mandatory firearm waiting period and ban overwhelmingly popular semi-automatic firearms.
After seeing his San Francisco anti-gun compatriot Kamala Harris get trounced by President Donald Trump at the polls, it’s no surprise the rumored 2028 presidential candidate would seek to distance himself from such an extreme anti-Second Amendment record.
Gun owners shouldn’t fall for it.
Actions, as the old saying goes, speak louder than words. Gavin Newsom’s long record in public office proves he cannot be trusted with Americans’ Second Amendment rights, no matter how much he now tries to rebrand himself for a broader audience.
More Like This From Around The NRA
