Gavin Newsom Could Soon Make California’s Gun Laws Even Worse

Not By Pie Guevara

Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of Engulf and Devour Investments LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Walton Industries which, in turn, is wholly owned by David Walton. So there!

 

“Not by Pie Guevara” since I am simply linking to an article from another source. Thanks to RHT447 for this link. Commiefornia may soon pass even more outrageous laws to abridge citizens right to bear arms (aka “sensible gun regulation”). What follows is a link to the original article sans embellishment or analysis of my own —

Gavin Newsom Could Soon Make California’s Gun Laws Even Worse

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

32 Responses to Gavin Newsom Could Soon Make California’s Gun Laws Even Worse

  1. cherokee jack says:

    We need to understand. The insane acts of a handful of homicidal maniacs is good enough reason to revoke the rights of a nation of law abiding gun owners.

    • Chris says:

      Trump thinks the insane acts of a handful of homicidal maniacs is good enough reason to revoke the right to travel to our country from law abiding citizens of seven different nations.

      I believe in the second amendment and believe that many of California’s gun control measures go too far. But don’t pretend that your party does not also constantly compromise freedom in the name of safety.

      • Post Scripts says:

        Pie Here: Interesting take from the Lickspittle Liar. Lickspittle Liar Chris seems to think that limiting travel from terrorist problem nations is abridging “freedom” and that travel from foreign nations citizens to the U.S. is a “right.” Does anyone besides myself see how demented this is? Where in the Constitution is the “right” for any foreign citizen to come here delineated.

        This is so typical of progressive dorks like Lickspittle Liar Chris, they invent “rights.”

        • cherokee jack says:

          Pie:
          That’s how they operate. Chris and Libby both use established liberal tactics in a debate. If they can’t dream up some irrelevant non sequiturs as a distraction, then they go AWOL. Go back and try to find either one when we discuss the disaster California has become under liberal domination.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Pie Here: Disruption is their game, irrelevance is their name, personal destruction their aim and no act in their cause — no matter how despicable and low — is a shame.

          • Libby says:

            First of all, Pie, particularly, does not “discuss” anything … as his response to Chris plainly shows. Picking away all the childishness, he seems to assert: yes, we can discrimination against many Muslims for the actions of a few, and no, we cannot discriminate against many gun owners for the actions of a few.

            Why he just can’t say so is beyond me.

            Second of all, I’m sorry if you’re feeling neglected, but, lately, there is very little on this blog worth commenting on. For instance, California is not a disaster, it’s the globe’s fifth largest economy. And while there are problems, we are working on them. We just made a law expanding the state’s ability to remove firearms from people who show any signs of mental instability. You have a problem with this?

            Frankly, all the harping you do about our progressive administration (domination ???) come across like a lot of flapping chicken wings. All fear and fluster and no substance. What ARE you afraid of? Just don’t be mentally unstable in public, and nobody will touch your guns.

          • Chris says:

            Picking away all the childishness, he seems to assert: yes, we can discrimination against many Muslims for the actions of a few, and no, we cannot discriminate against many gun owners for the actions of a few.

            Why he just can’t say so is beyond me.

            Simple and irrefutable, Libby.

          • cherokee jack says:

            Per Libby:
            “For instance, California is not a disaster,..”

            Really? Lousy school system that is structured for teachers, not students? Cities that look like nineteenth century Calcutta?

            “ ….it’s the globe’s fifth largest economy. And while there are problems, we are working on them. “

            Right. Like saving the planet by outlawing shampoo bottles. Enacting one anti-small business law after another. Removing the enforcement part of law enforcement while improving life and working conditions for professional criminals.
            “…We just made a law expanding the state’s ability to remove firearms from people who show any signs of mental instability. You have a problem with this?…”

            Damn right I do. The law gives any nut case the power to turn in an opponent, and once it’s done, the victim will have to prove he’s OK. You could turn me in, but it wouldn’t do any good. I don’t own any guns. If you don’t believe me, check the enemy file the state laughingly calls the list of gun owners.
            I’ve lived in California for more than eighty years. There have been problems, but we solved them. Liberals are making the problems irreversible.

          • Chris says:

            Cities that look like nineteenth century Calcutta?

            This is a fantasy in your head.

            The law gives any nut case the power to turn in an opponent, and once it’s done, the victim will have to prove he’s OK.

            The law does not do that.

            If you don’t believe me, check the enemy file the state laughingly calls the list of gun owners.

            There is no such list.

          • Libby says:

            I’m sorry, CJ, but nothing … NOTHING in your comment was true. There was bald lying, exaggeration, and plain silliness … no truth.

            We can’t spend our lives refuting every single item of nonsense you come up with … mostly because people who do that sort of thing are beyond the reach of reason.

            But what the hell. CJ, California did not ban “shampoo bottles” per se. We banned single use plastic containers that are criminally wasteful and pollute the environment.

            https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/06/you-eat-thousands-of-bits-of-plastic-every-year/

            They’re saying we now consume about a credit card’s worth of micro plastics every day. This can’t be good. And any sensible person wants their government to discourage wasteful plastic production.

            PLEASE, will you go educate yourself !!!!!

        • Chris says:

          Freedom of movement is a long-established right with roots in many traditions. I was not talking specifically about constitutional rights. But whether you see freedom of movement as a “right” or not, it is objectively true that restricting travel limits freedom. I believe that when the government restricts someone’s freedom, even someone who isn’t an American, the government should have a pretty strong reason for doing so. The strength of Trump’s reasoning for the travel ban was extremely weak, which is why Trump passed it as an executive order in the dead of night without consulting the Pentagon, creating chaos at airports all over the world. If the motive were truly keeping America safe, he would have consulted with the Pentagon. But it was simply a play to Trump’s anti-Muslim base. Remember that this travel ban evolved from Trump’s original campaign promise to ban all Muslims from traveling to the US, and that he also considered registering American Muslims on a list. These are transparently bigoted suggestions, and the five members of the Supreme Court who decided they couldn’t consider those suggestions and Trump’s clear motive when evaluating the travel ban were wrong. I encourage you to read the dissent by the four other justices who pointed out that ignoring a bigoted motive in evaluating the constitutionality of a law is a slippery slope.

          But thank you for proving my point: pro-Trump conservatives support the government restricting people’s freedom if it makes them feel more safe—regardless of whether such a move measurably improves safety—and if it targets people they do not identify with, such as foreign Muslims. That so many pro-Trump conservatives came from the Tea Party movement, which alleged to be all about protecting the little guy from Big Government, would make a reasonable person question the true motives of that movement.

          • cherokee jack says:

            True to form. You’ve avoided the question I continue to ask you about California. If you want some specifics, check my latest reply to Libby. I can’t wait to see your ballet steps again.

          • Chris says:

            The questions you asked about California are mostly based on false premises. You wanna bring up something real, I’ll be around.

  2. RHT447 says:

    ‘Gavin Newsom Could Soon Make California’s Gun Laws Even Worse”.

    He did.

    https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=1564352

    AB 61–

    “This bill would, commencing September 1, 2020, similarly authorize an employer, a coworker who has substantial and regular interactions with the person and approval of their employer, or an employee or teacher of a secondary or postsecondary school, with approval of a school administrator or a school administration staff member with a supervisorial role, that the person has attended in the last 6 months to file a petition for an ex parte, one-year, or renewed gun violence restraining order.”

    https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB61

  3. Post Scripts says:

    Pie Here:

    Re Lippy Picking away all the childishness, he seems to assert: yes, we can discrimination against many Muslims for the actions of a few, and no, we cannot discriminate against many gun owners for the actions of a few.

    Typical Lisckspittle and Lippy garbage. Picking away the most recent and paradigmatic conflation lunacy from Chris and Lippy, it appears that we cannot by law, by right or by reason restrict the travel of non-citizens from terrorist problem and terror exporting countries yet should discriminate against and abridge the God given 2nd amendment rights of all U.S. citizens because of the actions of a few left-wing mass murderers.

    To whom except a couple of specious, lunatic leftists would these two issues seem to be the same or even similar? I am not a mental health professional and so am not equipped to deal with or treat this sort of dementia and derangement. As such I suggest that the Lickspittle Liar and Lippy seek professionally trained help elsewhere to find relief from their mental disorders.

    • Libby says:

      I suggest that the Lickspittle Liar and Lippy seek professionally trained help elsewhere to find relief from their mental disorders.

      Childish.

    • Chris says:

      The connection was clear and explicit. You are against sacrificing freedom for safety if it impacts people you identify with, but for sacrificing freedom for safety when it impacts people you do not identify with. This is called prejudice. Especially when multiple national security officials have attempted to explain that the latter action didn’t actually do anything to improve safety, and in fact jeopardizes it. But you won’t hear it. Because of your prejudice.

      • Post Scripts says:

        What a bizarre and twisted fantasy world you live in Lickspittle, conflating these two issues. I am not a mental health professional and so cannot help you. I do not have the background and training. Nevertheless I suggest you stop taking whatever street drugs you may be ingesting daily and go back to your prescribed medicines. Seriously. Seek help.

      • cherokee jack says:

        …..”sacrificing freedom for safety when it impacts people you do not identify with. This is called prejudice. …”
        Prejudice is a preconceived opinion not based on reason.
        What’s your definition of a religion that instructs believers to kill all infidels? Do you “identify with” them? Check the Qur’an before you answer.

        • Post Scripts says:

          Pie Here: Of course Chris identifies with the religion that instructs believers to kill all infidels. That is pure Chris. That is what he is all about. A true believer.

          • Chris says:

            So you admit that you are fine with compromising the freedom of billions of members of the world’s third largest religion based on the actions of a few of its members, because it makes you feel more safe.

            Don’t ever complain about being called bigots again. How dare you even complain about it before. You are anti-Muslim bigots. You’ve never read the Quran, you’ve read what Breitbart has told you is in the Quran.

            The travel ban was clearly based on anti-Muslim animus, not safety. This is why Trump did not consult the Pentagon in implementing it. His implementation actually created chaos at airports around the world, *decreasing* safety. But you don’t actually care about that. Anyone who still defends Trump does not care about national security at all–how could they? He’s a clear threat to our national security. What you like about him is that he hurts people you don’t like, and that’s all that matters.

          • Libby says:

            Pie, there is Islam, and then there is fundamentalist Islam … just like we have them here in Christianity Land. You are not allowed to conflate the two … but you insist upon it … and me and Chris is here to smack you down, every time you do !!!!!

          • Post Scripts says:

            Pie Here: I conflate nothing, Lippy. Glad to see I have added a word to your limited vocabulary though.

          • Libby says:

            “the religion that instructs believers to kill all infidels.”

            Yes, Pie, you did. ONLY the fundamentalists interpret the scripture as above.

            Just like ONLY fundamentalist Christians interpret Romans 13 to uphold a repressive government.

            Your denial will not make this go away. It is what it is.

          • Post Scripts says:

            Pie Here: *SIGH* Lippy, what you do not know — or turn a blind eye to — about Islam and the vast majority of its adherents could fill several libraries. What you are ignorant of about Christians several more. I deny nothing. There is nothing for me to deny. This latest absurd nonsense from you is just another one of your lame, bizarre and rather puerile fantasy constructions desperately invented in order to try and discredit my person. I seriously suggest that you get a life. Acting out your aggressions playing troll and manufacturing dragons to slay online in some sort of idiotic progressive holy war against people with whom you disagree cannot be healthy. I recommend you re-evaluate your obviously very unhappy life and seek a mental health care professional.

        • Libby says:

          And a neener, neener … to you too.

          It’s very flattering to see you imitate my style. What you want to do now is cultivate one of your own, that preferably abandons the schoolyard taunts.

    • Chris says:

      yet should discriminate against and abridge the God given 2nd amendment rights of all U.S. citizens because of the actions of a few left-wing mass murderers.

      This is not an accurate representation of my opinion, if anyone cares. I support some new gun regulations–such as universal background checks–but I oppose others. The Democrats’ sit-in to keep people on the laughable terror watch list from buying guns was positively shameful. I also oppose a lot of California’s ammo and gun model restrictions and support concealed carry. I think the push to ban “assault rifles” is misguided and ill-informed. I absolutely support an individual right to own firearms. Your need to conflate me with the liberal bogeyman in your head while ignoring the actual arguments I’ve made on this site for years is sad.

  4. Peggy says:

    Newsom and the Dems in Sacramento have been very busy this year. Check out the partial list.

    California governor signs offbeat bills into law:

    “Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom celebrated his first year in office, taking action on more than 1,000 bills that reached his desk, including a few quirky measures.

    A spokesperson for the governor confirmed to FOX Business that he signed 870 bills this year.

    “We have clearly achieved a great deal together, and I commend the Legislature for their hard work. I look forward to our continued partnership as we head into the new year and continue to tackle challenges of affordability and work to expand opportunity to all Californians,” Newsom said in a statement on Sunday.”

    https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/california-newsom-bills-signed?fbclid=IwAR0U1LvVdGBfspT20LiEVY4_AvhkzR1fKubUidJ-ohqxt8Wao0pb0jItdl8

  5. Peggy says:

    The tale of two states.

    #1
    Brutal wipeout for Democrats in Louisiana and the press trying to keep it quiet:

    “The last of the Louisiana state election numbers are in and it’s not pretty for the Democrats.

    Not only does its moderate Democratic governor, John Bel Edwards, face a runoff as noted here, the state Senate has taken a supermajority. And a whole bunch of key state offices went squarely to Republicans. Funny how the press isn’t covering this much.

    But Guy Benson at Townhall is, and he found a Democratic Party “decimated”:

    Among statewide office-holders, the incumbent GOP Lieutenant Governor (68 percent), Attorney General (66 percent), Treasurer (60 percent, and Agricultural Commissioner (58 percent) were all re-elected without the need for a run-off, under the state’s ‘jungle primary’-style system. It also appears that the solid Republican majorities in both state legislative chambers will remain intact — with the GOP expanding its Senate advantage into super-majority territory by picking up a pair of Democratic seats:

    Amid record turnout for what is usually a sleepy off-year, irregular election, Louisiana Republicans locked up enough seats in the state Senate to amount to a super majority. The party came within seven seats of winning a super majority in the state House, too, with eight runoff elections to come in November.”
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/10/brutal_wipeout_for_democrats_as_final_louisiana_numbers_roll_in.html?fbclid=IwAR2KM-8UY4IYppat8GbLZN6U28usN3V_bztmKf0K8kl_LklYRP-zBEDNK5k#ixzz62QQNfnfw

    #2
    Gas Prices Soar as Californians Find Their Green Energy Is Useless in a Blackout:

    “As Los Angeles’ KTLA-TV reports, gas prices in California are at a five-year high. On Wednesday, the statewide average was $4.13, a shocking surge in America’s energy renaissance.

    Some reports have seen gas stations charging as much as $5.49 for a gallon of regular fuel.

    Along with the apparent supply-and-demand issue arising from California’s current crisis, the gas prices are also partly the result of the state’s “green” policies.

    According to fuel data website Gasbuddy, California’s gas is already pricey thanks to its restrictive carbon taxes.

    Completing this poll entitles you to The Western Journal news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
    In addition, the liberal West Coast has roughly half of the refineries it did in the past, creating a major supply problem when the facilities have to shut down for maintenance.

    Thanks to those factors, many have to deal with a lack of electricity at home and work, while paying a premium to drive between the two.

    For those living in the green utopia of California, this should serve as a warning about going all-in on one “miracle” technology. While the benefits of solar are impressive, drawing energy from different sources insulates the nation and the consumer from the fallout of disasters.”

    https://www.westernjournal.com/gas-prices-soar-californians-find-green-energy-useless-blackout/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=conservativetribune&utm_content=2019-10-11&utm_campaign=manualpost&fbclid=IwAR09uwQPTIpCGcqVLm0jrvtVMjyF4lZGzVhgIT0UHX74ibSudnUknjQJF_k

  6. RHT447 says:

    Newsom, continues to forsake his oath of office.

    Gov. Newsom Signs Law Allowing Californians Living in U.S. Illegally to Serve on Government Boards.

    Link–

    https://ktla.com/2019/10/14/gov-newsom-signs-law-allowing-immigrants-living-in-u-s-illegally-to-serve-on-government-boards/
    ____________________________________________

    “No provision of the Constitution is designed to be without effect,” “Anything that is in conflict is null and void of law”, “Clearly, for a secondary law to come in conflict with the supreme Law was illogical, for certainly, the supreme Law would prevail over all other laws and certainly our forefathers had intended that the supreme Law would be the bases of all law and for any law to come in conflict would be null and void of law, it would bare no power to enforce, in would bare no obligation to obey, it would purport to settle as if it had never existed, for unconstitutionality would date from the enactment of such a law, not from the date so branded in an open court of law, no courts are bound to uphold it, and no Citizens are bound to obey it. It operates as a near nullity or a fiction of law.” — Marbury v. Madison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *