Days after the shooting death of a Sacramento police officer, Gov. Gavin Newsom signaled Tuesday that he was prepared to sign additional gun control measures making their way through the California Legislature.

Newsom made his comments as he touted a new state law taking effect July 1 that will require background checks of people purchasing ammunition to make sure they are not prohibited from possessing firearms.

The governor was asked about the death Wednesday of Sacramento police Officer Tara O'Sullivan, who was shot in an ambush after she responded to a domestic violence call.

Officers say the alleged gunman had criminal convictions for domestic violence, DUI and battery, and had guns that are illegal in California, including two assault weapons.

Newsom said Tuesday he has provided millions of dollars more funding in his budget to remove guns from prohibited persons. He also has supported California’s “red flag” law, which allows family members and law enforcement officers to seek a court order to remove all firearms from an individual deemed to pose a danger.

Ten bills are pending in the Legislature that would expand the law, including one that would allow teachers, employers and co-workers to also petition the courts to remove guns from people determined to be a public risk.

The governor said there were a number of legislative efforts "to expand the scope of the red flag laws” that he hoped would get to his desk. “I expect they will be supported overwhelmingly upstairs,” he added, referring to the Legislature.

Other proposals to build on the “red flag” law would extend the duration of gun violence restraining orders from one to five years, increase training of police officers in how to use the law, and permit gun owners to voluntarily surrender their firearms to a court.

The governor also predicted that lives would be saved by the new ammunition background check law, which was part of Proposition 63, an initiative supported by Newsom that was approved by California voters in 2016. The Legislature revamped the new law to allow the nation’s first instant background checks at point of sale.

“In so many ways on the issue of gun safety from 1993 forward California has led,” Newsom said. “We have seen as a consequence of that a significant decline in the gun murder rate in this state that goes well beyond the trend line nationally. Gun safety laws save lives.”

The National Rifle Assn. and other groups are challenging the new background check in court, claiming it is an infringement of their rights to have firearms. Gun groups have won a court order blocking another provision of Proposition 63 that prohibits the possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines.

Newsom criticized the legal challenges. “The extreme rhetoric on the other side that denies simple background checks has to be called out,” Newsom said.

The governor’s news conference was attended by former state Senate leader Kevin De León, who feuded with Newsom in 2016 over who was championing the best gun control ideas. De León, who is running for Los Angeles City Council, introduced legislation in 2016 that preempted parts of Proposition 63 by simplifying the background check process.

At the time, Newsom said he was going ahead with his initiative, adding, "The Legislature has shown mixed results in passing legislation to address gun violence.” De León said back then that the “downside” of Newsom’s initiative was “you will provide aid to gun-control opponents by giving cover to reluctant legislators who would rather sidestep this important issue in lieu of a ballot initiative.”

On Tuesday, Newsom and De León each credited the other for enacting gun safety laws and they even embraced at one point. The governor downplayed their past differences. “We are looking forward,” he said.

shinzen wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:07 am The trend line is better because CA started from a much higher point you walnut. If it was so much better we'd be at half the rate of homicide that Texas has. This is going to be seriously fucked.

highdesert wrote:

Ten bills are pending in the Legislature that would expand the law...

featureless wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:11 am

shinzen wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:07 am The trend line is better because CA started from a much higher point you walnut. If it was so much better we'd be at half the rate of homicide that Texas has. This is going to be seriously fucked.

Yup. All those laws didn't keep that felon from possession of illegal firearms and killing a cop but surely the next round of laws will work. Do you suppose newsom has an armed security detail?

shinzen wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 9:51 am I swear, the only significant thing he's going to be able to point to actually getting done is passing more pointless gun control laws. He hasn't done anything of actual substance, just proposed policy ideas. Which is the same legacy he has from his time as mayor.

shinzen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:51 am
I swear, the only significant thing he's going to be able to point to actually getting done is passing more pointless gun control laws. He hasn't done anything of actual substance, just proposed policy ideas. Which is the same legacy he has from his time as mayor.

max129 wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 10:26 am

shinzen wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:51 am
I swear, the only significant thing he's going to be able to point to actually getting done is passing more pointless gun control laws. He hasn't done anything of actual substance, just proposed policy ideas. Which is the same legacy he has from his time as mayor.

I lived in San Francisco when Newsom was Mayor. Other than a brief moment of sunshine with city sanctioned gay marriage, his legacy is not good.

As they say in Texas, "All hat and no cattle."

shinzen wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:20 am Also yep to the way that things are paid for here- we in the middle class are definitely getting squeezed and I'm not seeing the benefit out of it for all of us. I'm absolutely fine with paying a good amount of taxes, but the point of taxes is that they go to programs that benefit us, and large corporations and the wealthy who have disproportionately benefited from having a well educated workforce and strong economy to pull from need to pay for it.

featureless wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:50 pm Sound byte on NPR this morning where Newsom said guns aren't particularly dangerous. It's the bullets we need to control. He was closer, but it's still the brain connected to the bugger hook that is the danger, not the tool.

DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:02 pm

featureless wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:50 pm Sound byte on NPR this morning where Newsom said guns aren't particularly dangerous. It's the bullets we need to control. He was closer, but it's still the brain connected to the bugger hook that is the danger, not the tool.

Is there a bill to criminalize reloading yet?

While touting California’s gun control policies, Gov. Gavin Newsom said Tuesday that residents would need Real IDs or equivalent documents to buy ammunition next month. Minutes later, the California Department of Justice contradicted him, clarifying that there would be no Real ID requirement as part of new firearm and ammunition regulations taking effect July 1. The mixed messages are adding to the confusion and frustration California gun owners and advocacy groups have expressed in recent weeks as they try to navigate new regulations they first learned about earlier this month.

Starting next month, under a 2016 gun control initiative, Californians must submit to background checks to purchase ammunition. Regulations announced this month by the Department of Justice to implement the voter-approved gun control initiative have confused gun owners and advocacy groups about whether identification known as Real ID would be required starting July 1.

Last week, gun rights advocates such as the California Rifle and Pistol Association began warning members that they’d need Real IDs to buy ammunition. Most Californians do not yet have a Real ID, and getting one would require a trip to the Department of Motor Vehicles. A spokesman for the Department of Justice, whom the department declined to name, said Tuesday that Californians could use regular California drivers licenses to purchase ammunition and would not need a Real ID. He said there was no regulation requiring Real IDs for ammo purchases moving forward.

The only licenses that would not be acceptable are ones that say “federal limits apply,” such as licenses for undocumented immigrants that are authorized under a 2013 California law. People with those licenses would also need additional documentation, such as a passport or birth certificate, according to the Department of Justice. That clarification from the department undercut what Newsom said minutes before at the news conference promoting the new requirements, where he said Californians would need a Real ID or equivalent documentation starting July 1. The California Department of Justice added that the regulation would also apply to gun purchases, not just ammunition.

J.R. Young, a gun owner in Los Gatos who shoots and hunts recreationally, said he researched the new requirements and thought regular California drivers licenses would not work for ammunition starting next month. He said lawmakers are adding “another layer of complexity” for gun owners like him as hunting season approaches. “Folks in California are wanting to be compliant, they’re wanting to do the right thing,” he said. “But now we’ve got all this confusion surrounding Real ID and the background checks.”

Assemblyman Jim Patterson, R-Fresno, sought clarification from Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office about the new proposed rules about Real ID but remains confused. “This seems like another monumental conflict and screw-up of policy making,” Patterson said. “There has to be a clear checklist of documents to bring. We’re going have an awful lot of people who I think are going to be denied guns not because they are suspect but because the system is so confusing.” Becerra left the news conference early and did not contradict Newsom on camera. While fielding questions from reporters, Newsom looked over his shoulders for help in explaining the proposed regulation. “Now I need my attorney general to look at the legal framework,” Newsom said.

Speaking more broadly about gun purchasing restrictions approved by voters in 2016 under Proposition 63 and set to go into effect next month, Newsom said Californians have had plenty of notice on many rule changes. He also said it’s currently more difficult to buy cold medicine than ammunition and that the new rules will help ensure dangerous people don’t have ammunition.

“Gun safety laws save lives,” he said. “The extreme rhetoric on the other side that goes against common sense has to be called out.”

“Gun safety laws save lives,” he said. “The extreme rhetoric on the other side that goes against common sense has to be called out.”

highdesert wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:10 pm

While fielding questions from reporters, Newsom looked over his shoulders for help in explaining the proposed regulation. “Now I need my attorney general to look at the legal framework,” Newsom said.

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-go ... 38023.html

featureless wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:06 pm

DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:02 pm

featureless wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:50 pm Sound byte on NPR this morning where Newsom said guns aren't particularly dangerous. It's the bullets we need to control. He was closer, but it's still the brain connected to the bugger hook that is the danger, not the tool.

Is there a bill to criminalize reloading yet?

Shhh. I don't think they know us knuckle dragging pleabs know how to do that.

shinzen wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:39 pm

featureless wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:06 pm

DispositionMatrix wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:02 pm

featureless wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 12:50 pm Sound byte on NPR this morning where Newsom said guns aren't particularly dangerous. It's the bullets we need to control. He was closer, but it's still the brain connected to the bugger hook that is the danger, not the tool.

Is there a bill to criminalize reloading yet?

Shhh. I don't think they know us knuckle dragging pleabs know how to do that.

They're already trying to go after rifle parts.

shinzen wrote: Wed Jun 26, 2019 1:02 pm Gods I must be old. My folks and my uncle taught me to drive, never took drivers ed. I did start driving at about 12 though, the old jeep willys with a trailer to haul water from the spring.

And yeah, the health care being tied to a job is just absurd. Insurance companies dictating what is and what isn't covered is absurd. Treating healthcare as a for profit industry in general is absurd.

As to leaving, we just moved here about 5 years ago from Colorado. Yeah, it's expensive, and yeah, the gun laws suck. I'd still rather be here though, as long as it's possible.