Gavin Newsom Blasts Judges Over Gun Ruling: 'Slap In The Face'
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
California Governor Gavin Newsom has decried a court's decision striking down a voter-backed California law that required background checks for people who buy bullets.
In a 2-1 decision on Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that the law violated the Second Amendment. The ruling upheld a lower court's decision from last year.
Newsom called the decision a "slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence."
He added that Californians "voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter."
Newsweekcontacted Newsom's office and California Attorney General Rob Bonta's office for further comment via emails on Friday sent outside regular business hours.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom holds a coffee on July 8, 2025 in Florence, South Carolina.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom holds a coffee on July 8, 2025 in Florence, South Carolina.Why It Matters
The law took effect in 2019 after voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot initiative on the issue in 2016 and after the state legislature passed a bill changing requirements for buying ammunition.
The law was intended to help police find people who have guns illegally, such as convicted felons, people with certain mental illnesses and people with some domestic violence convictions. Sometimes they order kits online and assemble guns in their home. The guns don't have serial numbers and are difficult for law enforcement to track, but the people who own them show up in background checks when they try to buy bullets.
What To Know
Judge Sandra Segal Ikuta wrote for the majority that the law "meaningfully constrains" the constitutional right to keep arms by forcing gun owners to get rechecked before each purchase of bullets.
"The right to keep and bear arms incorporates the right to operate them, which requires ammunition," Ikuta wrote.
In his dissent, judge Jay Bybee argued that the law creates only minor hurdles to legal purchases of ammunition, and that it does not "meaningfully constrain" the right to bear arms.
All three judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez decided that the law was unconstitutional because if people can't buy bullets, they can't use their guns for self-defense.
The law remained in effect while the state appealed the lower court's decision.
What People Are Saying
Newsom said: "Strong gun laws save lives – and today's decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter."
The California Department of Justice said the state needs "common-sense, lifesaving" laws that prevent ammunition from falling into the wrong hands.
The department said: "We are deeply disappointed in today's ruling — a critical and lifesaving measure that closes a dangerous loophole. Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options."
Chuck Michel, president and general counsel of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, which was part of the lawsuit against the California law, said in a statement: "This case has been a long hard fight against overreaching government gun control, but a firearm cannot be effective without the ammunition to make it operable. The state of California continues to try to strip our rights, and we continue to prove their actions are unconstitutional."
What's Next
It wasn't immediately clear if Thursday's ruling would mean an end to the litigation over the law. California could ask for the case to be heard by a bigger group of judges from the Ninth Circuit.
California has some of the nation's toughest gun laws. But many of them are being challenged in court after a 2022 Supreme Court decision that expanded gun rights and set a new legal standard for evaluating gun laws.
This article includes reporting from The Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
12 minutes ago
- New York Post
Town of Hempstead race features bestiality, porn, ex-NYPD cop
The election race to lead the most populous town in the US has gone down a perverted rabbit hole featuring bestiality, porn and a Marine veteran ex-NYPD cop. The campaign for Long Island's Town of Hempstead supervisor turned sickeningly X-rated when an old social-media post recently surfaced suggesting Democratic candidate Joseph Scianablo once boasted about looking at 'animal porn.' 'i just s—t myself while watchinG animal porn,' reads the Dec. 27, 2008, post on Scianablo's Facebook page. 4 Joseph Scianablo, the Democratic candidate for Town of Hempstead supervisor, came under fire after a bizarre Facebook post of his referencing 'animal porn' resurfaced. 4 A screenshot of Scianablo's post from 2008. While Scianablo is claiming his brother posed as him to post the twisted missive as a joke, the Dem's foe, interim Republican Hempstead Supervisor John Ferretti, said he is still disgusted by the antics involving 'bestiality' and that the whole sordid ordeal makes his opponent unfit for office. 'This is not a joke. This is not a youthful mistake. This is a statement that celebrates the abuse and exploitation of animals—and it is beneath the dignity of any individual seeking public office,' Ferretti told The Post. Ferretti noted that the job of Hempstead Town supervisor involves the direct oversight of the Hempstead Animal Shelter, which is designed to rescue, protect and care for cats and dogs, many of which have already been victims of cruelty and neglect. 'The idea that someone who created a social media post to celebrate bestiality and publicly joked about it could be in charge of protecting animals is both sickening and unacceptable,' Ferretti said. 'We are not talking about politics—we're talking about basic decency, judgment, and humanity.' 4 Republican Hempstead Supervisor John Ferretti said Scianablo's 'disgusting' Facebook post makes him unfit for office. Brigitte Stelzer Scianablo — a Marine combat veteran, retired NYPD officer and former prosecutor in the Queens District Attorney's Office — admitted that the post was written under his name but claimed he was the victim of a prank by his brother, Jason, at the time. 'I have a dopey brother who did this,' Scianablo told The Post on Sunday. 'My brother took my computer and posted it [the animal porn],' added the candidate, who was 31 at the time of the posting. He slammed Ferretti and the GOP for its 'desperate' mud-slinging in its bid for control of the town of nearly 800,000 residents. 'This is nothing but a smear,' Scianablo said. 'My record speaks for itself.' His campaign, in full damage-control mode, then provided a statement it says is from Jason fessing up to the prank. 'In 2008, I made a stupid, juvenile post on my brother's Facebook as a joke,' said the campaign statement attributed to Jason. 'My brother had returned from serving in combat as a US Marine in Iraq. For months, our family lived with the fear that we might lose him. When he came home, the relief was overwhelming, and I slipped back into being the kid brother who teased him instead of the man who should have been thanking him. 'My brother served four years as an NYPD officer, and he would later be seriously injured in the line of duty protecting victims of domestic violence. He has put his life on the line more times than I can count, for his fellow Marines, for the people of New York, and for complete strangers in danger. He has served with honor, courage, and commitment, and earned every role he has ever held through sacrifice and service.' Ferretti has meanwhile promoted his animal-rights record as a Nassau County legislator. He authored legislation that bans convicted animal abusers from owning pets and increased penalties for leaving animals in hot or freezing cars, while also cracking down on animal hoarders. 4 Scianablo blamed the post on his 'dopey' brother logging onto his computer. He sponsored another bill requiring owners of dogs deemed dangerous to notify neighbors within a 1,000-foot radius and to register those animals in a public safety database. 'This election is about who we can trust to do what's right. And clearly, Joe Scianablo is not that person,' Ferretti said. The race was already mired in controversy. Ferretti replaced Don Clavin, the three-term GOP town supervisor who stepped down before his term expired at year's end. Scianablo and other Democrats cried foul, saying it was a GOP power play to give Ferretti a leg up with the power of incumbency in the general election this fall.
New York Post
42 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kathy Hochul's attacks on Mike Lawler only highlight her own failures
Gov. Kathy Hochul is bizarrely slamming Rep. Mike Lawler for being unable to stand up to his own party, when that shoe fits a heck of a lot better on her foot. She's nominally mocking the Hudson Valley Republican's push to ban mid-decade House redistricting and rein in gerrymandering, but weirdly also claimed he had 'caved to 'Trump on SALT,' and followed up by scoffing that Lawler 'has no power.' What hogwash: Lawler in fact got the GOP to cave to him (and the rest of the state's Republican delegation) on SALT, managing to boost the 'ceiling' on the State And Local Tax deduction from $10,000 to $40,000 (for incomes under $500,000) — a huge gain for his constituents in defiance of GOP orthodoxy. Advertisement And this, despite President Donald Trump's warning that Lawler needed to 'back off.' Note, too, that New York Democrats couldn't get SALT addressed when their party controlled the White House and Congress in 2021-2. Which suggests that Lawler wields plenty of power within the GOP — more than, say, Long Island Rep. Tom Suozzi (who talked SALT nonstop in those years) does among Dems. Advertisement Heck, more than Sen. Chuck Schumer, too . . . unless Schumer just didn't prioritize making good on his vows to fix SALT. For that matter, we have trouble thinking of anything Hochul won for New York when Democrats dominated Washington. As for Lawler's bid to rein in gerrymandering, a response to Texas' drive to redraw its House map this year and to the noise from Hochul and other Dems about seeking to do the same: No, he probably won't get immediate action, but don't bet against him in the longer term. Advertisement Whereas Hochul can't possibly deliver anytime soon on her own threats to 'fight fire with fire' by gerrymandering here in New York — since it'd require amending the state Constitution, which is a two-year process. Nor does she bring a shred of principle to the fight: She was all aboard state Democrats' bid to gerrymander Republicans into oblivion in 2022, and happily played along with the district-redrawing NY Dems did pull off last year, helping them claw several seats from the GOP last November. By the way, the one bill Hochul managed to pass during her time in the House . . . ensured that clothes abandoned at airport-security checkpoints would be donated to charity. Nor has she shown much ability as gov to have her way with the state Legislature. Advertisement Indeed, its progressives routinely outright bully her, including with the unprecedented 2023 rejection of Justice Hector LaSalle, her eminently qualified nominee to become the state's chief judge. She's also been unable to win serious changes to the Legislature's disastrous criminal-justice reforms, and has even gone along with some new ones. Standing up to your party? Lawler mocked MAGA Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene as the 'Jewish space laser lady' and successfully pushed the expulsion of disgraced Republican liar Rep. George Santos. Hochul doesn't even dare denounce Zohran Mamdani as the extremist he clearly is, and even makes excuses for him. Which makes it all the more pathetic that she's taking shots at Lawler, even though he has passed on his own run for governor next year. Maybe the governor is simply jealous that Mike Lawler is the principled, effective moderate she only pretends to be?
Boston Globe
42 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump attacked California's congressional maps. Republicans want to save them.
'I would argue that independent redistricting benefits Republicans in California,' said Matt Rexroad, a Republican political consultant and redistricting expert. Advertisement The commission is receiving more scrutiny as a fierce tit-for-tat over redistricting ricochets across the country. At Trump's request, Texas lawmakers have drafted new maps to help Republicans win five additional seats in the US House of Representatives. Governor Gavin Newsom of California has vowed to respond in kind, by redrawing congressional districts in his state to create more seats that Democrats are likely to win. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Newsom's plan would toss the independent commission's maps through 2030 and replace them with intentionally partisan districts created by Democratic lawmakers. That has California Republicans working to preserve the maps Trump criticized as they try to block Newsom's attempt at a Democratic gerrymander. 'The California Republican Party will fight it in the courts, at the ballot box and in every community,' Corrin Rankin, the party chair, said in a statement. Advertisement She added that Democrats are 'trying to claw back power' that voters took from them when they created the commission. The Citizens Redistricting Commission is made up of five Democrats, five Republicans and four independents. They apply for their positions through a process run by the state auditor that screens out people who have run for office, made political donations or work for elected officials. After whittling down the pool of applicants from each party, the state auditor randomly draws names of the first eight commissioners, who then select the final six. Commissioners are not allowed to consider voters' parties or where incumbents live when determining district boundaries. Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan use a similar system. A few other states have commissions that are appointed by politicians. In most states, though, the party that controls the legislature has the power to draw political maps. Research shows that states with maps drawn by independent commissions or through court intervention are more representative than those in states where politicians control the process. But that does not mean they always wind up being perfectly balanced. An analysis by Planscore, a consortium of redistricting experts affiliated with the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, found that California's system gives Democrats a slight advantage. The model rates maps based on four different measurements, two of which show that California's plan is balanced and two that show it skews in Democrats' favor. Some Republicans, including Vance, have criticized California's system because the share of seats Republicans hold in the House (17 percent) is less than the share of votes Trump won in California last year (38 percent). Steve Hilton, a Republican running for governor of California, said Newsom's proposal would take California 'from a 'rigged' to an 'ultra-rigged' electoral system.' Advertisement But such discrepancies between the share of seats one party holds and the share of votes it receives are not uncommon, experts said, even in states that are not gerrymandered. And the numbers alone do not prove that a system is intentionally biased. 'Partisan advantage is separate from intent,' said Eric McGhee, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Public Policy Institute of California, who worked on the Planscore analysis. 'It's not clear that there is purposeful bias in the California system,' he said. He pointed out that California's maps were approved by a unanimous vote of the redistricting commission, including the Republican members, and that commissioners drew the boundaries without looking at data on voters' party affiliation. A different analysis by the Gerrymandering Project, a research group at Princeton University, gave California a grade of B, saying its redistricting plan is 'better than average, with some bias.' The California electorate is heavily Democratic, with registered Democrats outnumbering registered Republicans by nearly 2-1. So giving both parties equal representation on the redistricting commission technically gives Republicans outsize influence, said Matt Barreto, a Democrat, who directs the Voting Rights Project at UCLA. Commissioners are laypeople, not political operatives, and they serve for one round of map-drawing at the start of each decade. They take input from the public in drawing boundaries, and must consider keeping communities together based on their shared interests, such as economic ties or languages spoken. From the perspective of Rexroad, a veteran Republican redistricting expert, California's system has actually been good for his party. Before voters approved the independent commission in 2008, California's maps were drawn by the legislature, with the process dominated by partisanship and politicians' desires to protect their seats. Advertisement And despite its flaws, Rexroad said, that's better than putting politicians in charge. California's commission created several congressional seats that Republicans won that would likely not exist if the state's Democratic-controlled legislature drew the maps, Rexroad said. Many will probably vanish if California enacts Newsom's proposal to counter Texas' Republican gerrymander with a similar move to help Democrats. The plan calls for a ballot measure asking voters to amend the state Constitution to allow the partisan mid-decade redistricting. Lawmakers are scheduled to consider Newsom's proposal the week of Aug. 18. If they approve it, the measure will likely go before voters in a Nov. 4 special election. Newsom has said he wants the state to return to independent redistricting after the 2030 census. The governor gathered Democratic lawmakers for a news conference in Sacramento on Friday to demonstrate their solidarity in favor the plan. On Saturday, he appealed for donations that could be used to fund the redistricting campaign. Meanwhile, the California Republican Party is sending emails requesting donations to fight what it says is Newsom's latest corrupt scheme. Charles Munger, a Republican donor whose father was a billionaire investor, funded campaigns for the 2008 and 2010 ballot measures that created California's independent redistricting system and has said he will back efforts to maintain it on the ballot and in court. This article originally appeared in Advertisement
