Is Bill Amending Gavin Newsom’s Gun-Control Initiative Legal?

Ammunition1Legislative Democrats pushed through a gun-control measure last week that is almost certain to be challenged in court — where it’ll have a tough time surviving — all for the sake of what some claim is a political grudge.

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

The Legislature passed 11 bills in all, six of which were signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown and the rest vetoed. But one is fraught with peril as it circumvents the Elections Code by amending a November ballot initiative regulating ammo sales.

The difference between how the bill, sponsored by Senate President Pro Tempore Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, and the ballot measure, sponsored by Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, regulate ammo sales is not substantial. But Democrats have had a hard time providing legal justification for going around Section 9034 (c) in the Elections Code, which says the Legislature does not have the authority to “alter the initiative measure… .”

Republicans tried

Assembly Republicans tried raising the issue just before final passage, but were brushed aside.

“Don’t we have a statutory or Constitutional problem in amending something that hasn’t even become law yet and is proposed to go to the voters for a vote,” asked Assemblyman James Gallagher, R-Plumas Lake.

Assemblyman Kevin Mullin, who was presiding at the time, said the Legislature had the authority under “the initiative process and statute.” The San Mateo Democrat, however, was unable to identify a particular law or statue, offering instead that legislative counsel said it was OK.

Assemblyman Don Wagner tried next.

“I think you’re wrong,” the Irvine Republican told Mullin, citing the Elections Code. Wagner appealed the ruling, saying the Legislature was “trampling the will of the people,” who signed a ballot measure without de León’s amendment, adding that the Legislature was “acting illegally and in violation of the Elections Code.” Assembly Democrats pushed forward and Wagner was overruled.

Attempts to get justification 

According to documents provided by de León’s office, legislative counsel did not review the legality of the measure. Instead, legislative counsel issued an opinion on how the amendment would affect the ballot measure.

No legal justification for the law has been provided to CalWatchdog, although de León’s office pointed to an instance from 1990 when the Legislature amended Prop. 129. The measure failed by a wide margin, however, and CalWatchdog has been unable to find a legal ruling setting precedent.

Language in the measure

Next, de León’s office pointed to a provision in Newsom’s ballot language stating: “The provisions of this measure may be amended by a vote of 55 percent of the members of each house of the Legislature and signed by the Governor so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this Act.” But it’s unclear if the legislative intent of that passage is referring to before or after the measure becomes law, although that’s likely irrelevant. Until the ballot measure is approved by the voters (if it is approved by voters) it has no force of law.

And if the legislative intent was to allow the legislature to amend the measure’s language prior to a vote of the people, it’s unlikely that Newsom or any other ballot initiative proponent has the power to temporarily rewrite the Elections Code.

Proponents have a period to amend pending initiatives, but that period ended a while ago.

Lack of accountability

The attorney’s general office has not responded to requests for comment. Gov. Jerry Brown signed the bill into law last week, but his office deferred to de León.

A spokesperson for the ballot initiative said proponents were focused on getting the measure passed and did not say if they would challenge the law.

Newsom/de León fued

In recent weeks, the Newsom/de Leon feud has spilled out into public, with a Newsom spokesman calling the move “sickeningly cynical.”

“Is (de León) someone who truly respects the will of the voters and wants to reduce gun violence or is he merely a self-serving cynic completely consumed with petty personal grudges,” spokesman Dan Newman told The Sacramento Bee.

De León has had it out for Newsom for a while over the gun issue. When Newsom announced plans to introduce the measure last year, de León — who’d made background checks for ammo purchases a pet priority — slashed the size of Newsom’s staff.

This article was originally published by


  1. Really??? says

    Have to love the audacity if power politics.

    …” may be amended by a vote of 55 percent …. so long as such amendments are consistent with and further the intent of this Act….”

    Ok and who’s interpretation? The already prejudiced legislature? The obviously prejudiced governor? Or a judge that has been hand picked to take more of our rights?

    De Leon is no saint. On KNBC he made statements that are far reaching in justification of his anti Rights positions. They (Democrats) ignore the last time this was put in place there was no statistical justification after decades of requirement. It was repealed under threat of a lawsuit based upon the State of California’s own numbers.

    There should be a banner flown over every Democrat office….”Stupid is as Stupid does.”

    Still voting Democrat?

    (now about mineral water rights)

  2. askeptic says

    If it’s being done by Progressives, Thou Shalt Not Question Its Legality; for, they have their Pen and Phone.

  3. Why is there not a challenge to signatures on Newsoms Initiative? If this were any other initiative, it would be immediately challenged.

  4. retiredxlr8r says

    Any and All California laws that would influence my Second Amendment rights are illegal and should be treated as such by every American that is true to the Constitution.
    California’s communistic move to limit the ability of its citizens to protect them selves from crime and the tyranny of such a government as California’s should be nullified by every County Sheriff that believes in American values and ideals.
    Our Second Amendment rights should not be changed, modified, or influenced by any state law in any manner. It is NOT their domain.
    Want to solve the crime problem? Make the punishment fit the crime. Appoint real judges who respect the rule of law. And stop electing liberal, feel good, and “what can I buy you with taxpayer money so I can buy your vote” politicians!

  5. You do realize that requiring background checks to buying ammo means that there will be an extra $35 cost added when you buy that 15 dollar box of ammo.

Speak Your Mind