Dems Battle Each Other Over Gun Control

GunSeeking to bolster his early-bird campaign for governor, Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom forged ahead with a controversial ballot initiative designed to put severe strictures on guns in California. But in addition to raising the ire of Republicans statewide, Newsom has begun to clash with members of his own party in Sacramento, who don’t share his vision of the right political strategy on the issue in November and beyond.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Exploiting divides

Beyond “checks for ammunition purchases — like those already in place for guns — the measure would ban possession of large-capacity rifle magazines, require gun owners to notify police when their weapons are lost or stolen, and enact rules for courts to confiscate guns from criminals who are prohibited from possessing them,” the San Francisco Chronicle reported. “Other provisions would reclassify possession of a stolen gun as a felony and require California to share its background check information with the FBI.”

“Newsom said supporters will submit 600,000 signatures on petitions to qualify an initiative that would strengthen California’s gun-control laws, already some of the strictest in the nation. They need 365,880 signatures of registered voters to make the ballot.”

In 1982, the paper noted, gun control advocates’ last effort at taking their agenda directly to voters resulted in defeat at the hands of a well-organized opposition mobilized by the National Rifle Association. Republicans have already begun to plan for a similar effort. Congressional candidate Tim Donnelly called Newsom’s plan a “disaster” that would spur outsized Republican turnout at the polls, according to the Sacramento Bee. “Donnelly, who was once cited for bringing a loaded gun to an airport, said in recent months he’s become an even bigger supporter of gun rights, citing the terror attack in San Bernardino,” the paper added.

Two different playbooks

With the state GOP divided and stunned by Donald Trump’s sweep toward the Republican nomination for president, however, Newsom has not put a great deal of stock in opposition to his plan from the right. On the left, however, he has stepped on the toes of legislative Democrats, complicating his plans considerably. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, “wants him to agree to step aside if the issue can gain traction in the Legislature by June,” as the Los Angeles Times reported. De León “warned his fellow Democrat in a private letter on Thursday that pursuing the initiative could ‘derail’ gun control” — but “Newsom wrote back later Thursday urging de León to join his initiative drive. He voiced skepticism about legislative efforts to address gun control, adding that the measure de León supports is ‘fundamentally different’ from his ballot measure, the Safety for All Act.”

“Newsom said only an initiative, for instance, can amend part of 2014’s criminal justice measure, Proposition 47 — a portion that critics say would allow people convicted of theft of a firearm to be charged with a lesser crime than felony grand theft.”

For their part, Critical Democrats have expressed worries that Newsom is willing to risk a political miscalculation in order to establish his brand as a proactive progressive who shouldn’t be seriously challenged in his run for higher office.

Although both de León and Newsom could benefit from support from within the governor’s mansion, neither has managed to lock it in. “Evan Westrup, spokesman for Gov. Jerry Brown, maintained the governor has not taken a position on this initiative and generally doesn’t comment on pending ballot measures,” Fox News reported. “But in 2013 the governor vetoed a proposed reporting of stolen or lost firearms, saying he was ‘not convinced that criminalizing the failure to report a lost or stolen firearm would improve identification of gun traffickers or help law enforcement disarm people prohibited from possessing guns.’”

Originally published by CalWatchdog.com

Comments

  1. I say, the Do as we say…..Not as we do Politicians give up their guns AND their security needs to give up theirs also
    They can live by their owm damn laws!!!!!!!!

  2. askeptic says

    If “safety” is Newsome’s goal, he should just recreate CA as one giant prison camp; after all, no one is “safer” than a prison inmate – Right?

  3. Anziani says

    A good suggestion from O’Rielly: Make it a federal crime (5 years, no pleas bargain)for a felon to have a gun. Make it a federal crime for using a gun during a crime (10 years no plea bargain). Make it a federal crime for killing someone with a gun (life in prison, no plea bargain). These laws hit the ones doing most of the damage. But then liberals want to control YOU not the criminals.

    • Oblamo binLyen says

      All the laws in the world won’t change criminals. Two laws that have been around for a L O N G time sure haven’t made much of a difference….Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt Not Steal. As usual the low information politicians seeking power are playing to their even lower information base.

    • Skeptical says

      “”Make it a federal crime (5 years, no pleas bargain)for a felon to have a gun.”” I think you mean well Anziani, but beyond the obvious truth that institutionalized felons or the insane who are de facto the only legitimately prohbited class that should not be able to buy or possess firearms, the inheirent right to keep and bear arms is not conferred or revocable by the state.
      “Make it a federal crime for killing someone with a gun (life in prison, no plea bargain)” is inane since to whole designed intent of firearms is to be able to present a lethal threat to be acted upon with just cause; or did you mean “murder” (there is a differance).

    • Possession of a firearm by a felon is already a federal offense that carries a 5-10 year sentence. As for your other proposals for federal law they would seriously intrude upon the autonomy of the States and their general police power. The federal government can’t just enact any law it wants because powers not delegated to the United States within the Constitution are reserved to the States under the 10th Amendment. And the whole no plea bargain thing is just a terrible idea that would greatly increase the workload and cost of already loaded courts and provide very little benefit.

  4. Really??? says

    Old News, the ammo thing was tried 50 years ago in Calif. and failed to reduce or track criminal behavior. When ever there is a crime with a gun prosecute on the Federal Level making convicted felons sent to the Fed.’s. This makes the criminal unavailable to most of their “folks” and immediately reduces crime because they are not available as “local” heroes in the gang community.

    Strict enforcement of current laws and prosecution at the Federal Level WORKS, and there is no need for further laws.

    It is time for the people to wake up… after all there was more fire power in the hands of “civilians” after WWII & Korea then now and there were not the idiots in the streets as today.

  5. Skeptical says

    The fresh political example of Lt. Gov. Grating Nuisance is one of an opportunistic hemmoroid exemplifiing the obscene excesses of Progressivism that disease the beautiful state of California. This transplanted political philosophy/plague needs flushing from the California body politic, and the sooner the better. IMO

  6. styrgwillidar says

    The California legislature has about a dozen bills with restrictions on the publics civil rights with guns going through the process right now. And CA already has some of the most restrictive laws as it is. All will infringe on the rights of the law abiding while doing nothing to reduce crime.

    If Newsome and the democrats were serious about reducing crime, the state and city governments would stop aiding and abetting the violation of immigration laws on a massive scale. Illegal alien gangs are a major cause of violence in the state, a significant percentage of prisoners are illegal aliens. Its ridiculous that they expect the public to obey any laws at all when they have been undermining the rule of law themselves.

    when called to jury duty in CA, I tell the judge I will not convict anyone of anything- amnesty for one, amnesty for all.

  7. “… shall not be infringed.”

    what part of that is unclear?

Trackbacks

  1. […] Dems Battle Each Other Over Gun Control Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom forged ahead with a controversial ballot initiative designed to put severe strictures on guns in California. But in addition to raising the ire of Republicans statewide, Newsom has begun to clash with members of his own party in Sacramento, who don’t share his vision of the right political strategy on the issue in November and beyond. … On the left … he has stepped on the toes of legislative Democrats, complicating his plans considerably. Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, “wants him to agree to step aside if the issue can gain traction in the Legislature by June,” as the Los Angeles Times reported. De León “warned his fellow Democrat in a private letter on Thursday that pursuing the initiative could ‘derail’ gun control” — but “Newsom wrote back later Thursday urging de León to join his initiative drive. He voiced skepticism about legislative efforts to address gun control, adding that the measure de León supports is ‘fundamentally different’ from his ballot measure, the Safety for All Act.” […]

Speak Your Mind

*