The California State Legislature has adjourned for the year and, unsurprisingly, sent a number of anti-gun bills to Governor Gavin Newsom (D) to consider. While it would be completely within his nature to simply sign them into law, perhaps his desire to become president will cause him to at least think about what is in the best interest of his political future regarding one of the bills.
Sadly, we’ve learned to not expect his decisions to be guided by what’s in the best interest of Californians, and certainly not the law-abiding ones who own firearms.
That said, of particular interest to any discussion about the governor’s political future regarding this slate of anti-gun bills is Assembly Bill 1127, which would prohibit California firearms dealers from selling certain semi-automatic pistols. While the claimed intent is to better restrict individuals from converting certain pistols into automatic “machine guns,” federal law already prohibits such conversion.
This effort is little more than an attempt to ban Glock pistols in California, even if they are not specifically named in the bill.
As a bit of back story (one most readers know), anti-gun extremists have long blamed gun manufacturers when criminals use their lawfully made products to commit violent crimes; even though the criminals generally obtain them through illegal means and use them in ways never intended. Glock pistols have been specifically vilified by these same groups in recent years because criminals have sometimes gone even further than “just” using them to commit crimes; they illegally modify them.
While some have suggested taking a somewhat unnecessary, duplicative approach of enacting new prohibitions on the already federally-prohibited act of converting semi-automatic firearms into fully-automatic firearms, others have decided that they must punish gun makers—specifically Glock—when criminals decide to violate federal laws to make these conversions.
Readers are painfully aware of anti-gun extremists trying to sue gun manufacturers for the criminal acts of third parties. It was this campaign of meritless lawsuits, designed to bankrupt gun makers and distributors, that led to the passage of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in 2005. The PLCAA received broad bipartisan support.
The PLCAA simply makes it clear that the firearms industry, in lawfully marketing its products, is not responsible for the acts of criminals who misuse them.
Realizing how hard it might be to try to circumvent the PLCAA in the U.S., anti-gun extremists then began to collaborate with foreign governments to restart their destructive, unwarranted litigation campaign. The Supreme Court of the United States, thankfully, recently held that the PLCAA’s protections don’t really care if the third party crimes supposedly giving rise to a meritless suit are homegrown or from another country. The protections still apply.
These kinds of legal defeats led to an offshoot of the rejected litigation smear campaign, as cities like Chicago, unable or unwilling to address their violent crime problem, took to suing Glock because the city’s criminals were not just terrorizing honest, law-abiding residents and visitors by illegally acquiring firearms, but were also illegally modifying pistols made specifically by Glock.
This kind of thinking is what led to AB 1127 in California.
But what Newsom does with this bill—sign or veto—is still something to consider, even if his instinct may be to just reflexively sign an anti-gun bill. You see, it has become obvious to anyone who follows national politics even a little that Gavin Newsom wants to be president. In order to achieve that goal, however, he may have to try to convince law-abiding gun owners he is not going to do everything in his power to eviscerate their rights protected under the Second Amendment if he should actually become president.
To that end, Newsom recently took part in a podcast where he claimed, “I’m not anti-gun at all.” This came after the host, Shawn Ryan, “gifted” the governor a California-compliant pistol; a Sig P365 XMACRO semi-automatic handgun with a 10-round magazine (rather than the standard 17-round) required under California law.
Newsome went on to proclaim, “I’m also deeply mindful and respectful of the Second Amendment and people’s Constitutional rights.”
It was later reported that Newsom never actually accepted the gift. Whether he didn’t accept because he actually hates all guns or because he could not figure out how to navigate California’s Byzantine gun laws is unclear.
So, if he actually is not anti-gun and respects the Second Amendment (against all available evidence), maybe he will consider vetoing the bill. We don’t anticipate that, but considering Glock pistols are arguably the most popular self-defense handguns in America, if not the world, you would think the positions Newsom claimed in the Ryan interview would guide him towards a veto.
Glocks are also extremely popular with law enforcement, as many departments make them standard-issue sidearms for their officers, including some in California. That, of course, is why AB 1127 contains the standard exemptions that allow acquisition and use by law enforcement found in virtually every other anti-gun law.
Then there’s former vice president Kamala Harris (D) to consider. She, like Newsom, has tried to claim she is not rabidly anti-gun. She went so far as to try to convince gun owners she was just like them by claiming to own a handgun; specifically, a Glock. While she never specified what model, there’s a reasonably good chance that, if she does own a Glock, it would be affected by AB 1127.
So, what are the political optics of a California governor signing into law a ban on the manufacture and sale of a handgun that a former California Attorney General (Harris) claims to own? And what would Harris then do?
Does she hope nobody connects the dots? Does she orchestrate a public anti-gun display of ceremoniously turning the gun over to be destroyed, even though AB 1127 does not appear to have any impact on guns currently owned that might fall under its proscription? Does she keep a gun that could no longer lawfully be sold or purchased by “ordinary” Californians?
Harris, potentially, could be running against Newsom to be the next Democrat nominee for president. Does that factor into Newsom’s calculus on AB 1127? Could he sign it, even though it goes against his claim of not being anti-gun, just to paint Harris into a corner regarding her claim of owning a Glock?
There may be a surprising amount of consideration that goes into what Newsom does with AB 1127. California anti-gun politics, however, do not translate well to the country at large. We shall soon see where Newsom’s true priorities lie: at home or in an address across the country on Pennsylvania Avenue in D.C.
Stay tuned.
More Like This From Around The NRA
