California innovation: Gun safety freedoms

by philg

From Governor French Laundry:

I am in love with him/her/zir/them referring to these restrictions as “freedoms”.

Separately, I can’t figure out why the proposal is so weak. He/she/ze/they says these tweaks will “end our nation’s gun violence crisis”. But if the government continues to allow private citizens access to firearms, won’t there still be plenty of gun violence? Governor French Laundry promises to ban “civilian purchases of assault weapons”, but that still leaves approximately 6 percent of Americans in possession of an AR-15. If any one of those 6 percent wakes up on the wrong side of the bed, that’s high potential for gun violence!

Also, though Americans under 21 will be restricted by these freedoms from legally purchasing a gun, those 21+ will still be able to do so. Aren’t there enough Americans over 21 committing gun violence that we would still be suffering from a “gun violence crisis” even if nobody under 21 ever did any shooting?

Readers may recall Seal off criminal-rich neighborhoods to tackle the public health emergency of gun violence? in which residents of some neighborhoods would be locked down and walled off. Could being forbidden to leave the house/neighborhood also be considered a “gun safety freedom”?

14 thoughts on “California innovation: Gun safety freedoms”

  1. Most of those things are already California law. California has background checks, a waiting period, and an assault weapon ban. How has that worked out? Did it end the gun violence crisis in California?

  2. Seems highly unlikely this will go anywhere since citizens, probably a large majority, believe that law enforcement is unable to protect them and their property from violent criminals and therefor demand to own firearms. These views are buttressed by the fact that those jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun laws are also the jurisdictions with the highest levels of gun violence. Those who are aghast at the though of a citizen having the right to protect himself or herself against crime could always move north of the 49th parallel.

    • “fact that those jurisdictions with the most restrictive gun laws are also the jurisdictions with the highest levels of gun violence”

      Any source you could point to in order to back up this statement?

  3. Newsom is simply re-introducing existing California gun laws to hide more crushing issues Californians are facing. Newsom doesn’t want you to think about homelessness, drug addicts, poverty level, living standards decline, and high office and retail vacancies in California.

    • I don’t think it’s that. It’s because he’s running for president on the down-low.

      He has said that he won’t take on Biden, but of course, if Biden changes his mind, or takes a spill, or has a major senior moment, or they find the cocaine was his, or they find $50M of Chinese money in the trunk of his old Corvette, then Newsome will step up to be the Hero The Moment Requires and offer the country his services.

      So that’s why he has been trying to keep up a national profile with stunts like this.

  4. Gun violence has clearly become the greatest crisis of the multiple crises that afflict us here in our country. Where else in the world do so many guns spontaneously kill people? We even have racist guns now…who could have foreseen that? Following closely is automobile violence (tens of thousand per year die or are needlessly injured)! And racist roadways too!

  6. Newsom is not electable in most of America; his hope is that whatever, independently of whether it is sane or alive,crowned as Democrat candidate will automatically get right margin of votes.
    He is running to attract smart (idiot) money for the next time and to establish himself as line – touting corporate communist to fight for 2028 Democrat party coronation. With all the superdelegates, Biden already has sure lock on Democrat nomination in 2024.

Comments are closed.