California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a slew of anti-gunner bills into law on Saturday aimed at making it harder for residents to keep and bear arms.
Newsom has already signed multiple gun control bills over the past year, claiming they are designed to curb gun violence in the state.
From SF Weekly:
The law, Senate Bill 948, would apply to current residents with newly purchased guns starting in 2029. The class would need to be at least four hours long. Starting in 2028, people moving to California with guns would need to obtain a firearm safety certificate within 180 days of arrival. Berkeley Democratic Sen. Jesse Arreguín wrote the legislation.
It was one of 10 gun safety laws Newsom signed. They represent his last gun control efforts as governor, and his own record shows that some of the measures will likely face legal challenges from pro-firearm organizations. For instance, the 2016 ballot proposition Newsom carried that demanded background checks for ammunition purchases is awaiting a final determination from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rebecca Marcus, a lobbyist for the gun control organization the Brady Campaign, told lawmakers in March that more than 69,000 shootings resulted in death or required urgent medical care in California from 2016 to 2021. Roughly a third of those shootings were accidental, she said, and many involved children.
In a press release, Newsom described the cadre of signed pieces of legislation as efforts to “address multiple stages of firearm-violence prevention: identifying and understanding crime guns, preventing prohibited possession, intervening when someone poses a risk, safely storing firearms, improving training and accountability, supporting young survivors and responding to emerging technologies.”
Emma Brown, executive director of the gun safety advocacy group Giffords, commended Newsom for signing the laws. “California leads the nation in gun safety because its leaders work tirelessly to prevent violence and keep communities safe,” she said in a written statement. “The policies enacted today will save lives by closing loopholes and investing real resources in community violence intervention.”
Newsom also signed bills to prohibit a wider swath of Californians from owning firearms and another allowing cities and universities to obtain data regarding weapons found at crime scenes.
Another law Newsom signed would expand the list of persons barred from owning weapons. Senate Bill 1220 would bar a person from owning a gun for 10 years if they’re convicted of stripping a gun of its serial number information that law enforcement officers use to track weapons.
“Imposing a 10-year blanket prohibition on Second Amendment rights for such misdemeanors goes beyond what is necessary for public safety,” the California Rifle and Pistol Association wrote in an opposition letter.
And with Newsom’s signing of Assembly Bill 1743, cities and universities in California can request data from the state Department of Justice on weapons recovered during criminal investigations. A supporter of the legislation, Brady United to End Gun Violence, argued that by allowing academics to look up the serial numbers of the guns, research can be strengthened on how weapons find their way from manufacturers to crime scenes. “Are the guns coming from in state? Are they coming from a specific county? Are they coming from nearby or far away? Are they coming from a specific dealer?” the Brady organization asked.
These laws, like many others, will undoubtedly face legal challenges — most of which are likely to be successful. The Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Associations v. Bruen mandates that gun laws must be consistent with laws passed during the Founding era and the 19th century.
The state will struggle to demonstrate that any of these laws — especially the training course requirement — is similar to any measures enacted during this period in U.S. history.
Ever since the Supreme Court issued its Bruen ruling, blue states have been trying to subvert it by passing a wave of gun control laws even though they knew they would eventually be struck down. It seems they are trying to impose restrictions that infringe on people’s Second Amendment rights as long as they can before legal challenges strike them down.
