While I Was Away – No. 2

Continuing on with the things I missed while at the beach are these two announcement from the Firearms Policy Coalition regarding bullet buttons and proposed ammo regulations in California. The FPC is a multi-state coalition of gun rights groups headquartered in California. They have been keeping a close eye on the regulations being developed for the enforcement of recently enacted firearms laws and propositions.

When you are headquartered in a state where the progressives have a monopoly on virtually everything, you have to fight back anyway you can. Showing that they have learned Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and especially Rule No. 4, the Firearms Policy Coalition is making the California Department of Justice live up to all those progressive laws dealing with public notice and freedom of information.

On bullet buttons:

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 21, 2017) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has obtained a copy of the newest version of the California Department of Justice (DOJ) “assault weapons” regulations. FPC has published the regulations at BulletButtonBan.com, a Web site it established in 2016 for tracking the new California assault weapon laws and regulations.

“FPC’s Regulatory Watch program has once again proved its value in ensuring that the State of California does not advance its gun control agenda behind closed doors,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “Without this program, countless gun-owning Californians would be in the dark about their future.”

Last December, the DOJ submitted its first attempt at “assault weapons” regulations under the California Office of Administrative Law’s (OAL) “File & Print” process, which means that the DOJ believed the regulations were not subject to public notice or comment. However, thousands of FPC members and Second Amendment supporters sent letters opposing the secret process through FPC’s grassroots tools and, without further comment, the DOJ withdrew the regulations near the end of OAL review period.

In May (a quarter of a year later), the DOJ re-submitted regulations under the same “File & Print” process. It took numerous legal demands to DOJ and OAL to finally get OAL to provide FPC with a copy of the proposed regulations. Following DOJ’s numerous attempts at hiding firearm regulations from the public, Craig DeLuz, FPC’s Legislative Advocate, and FPC filed a legal action against DOJ (DeLuz, et al. v California Department of Justice) in order to ensure that in the future DOJ complies with the California Constitution and Public Records Act.

In the end, these proposed regulations were summarily rejected by OAL a little more than a month later. And now DOJ has submitted almost the same exact regulations, appearing only to have changed the implementation date from January 1, 2018 to July 1, 2018. This new date was established by AB 103, a recently approved budget trailer bill.

“At first glance, the DOJ’s latest package of ‘assault weapons’ regulations are as awful as their first two attempts,” noted DeLuz. “It appears that DOJ keeps submitting the same proposed regulations, over and over again, expecting different results. Isn’t that the definition of insanity?”

The second announcement has to do with California’s proposed ammunition regulations and the hearings seeking feedback.

SACRAMENTO, CA (July 20, 2017) — Adding to the growing list of its legal woes, the California Department of Justice (DOJ) was forced to issue a new regulatory notice and postpone a hearing regarding their recently-submitted regulations concerning new ammunition vendors and licenses. Many new ammunition laws were passed last year in Gavin Newsom’s so-called “Safety for All Act” (Proposition 63) and in Senate President pro Tempore Kevin de León’s Senate Bill 1235 (SB 1235).

As part of its California regulatory watch program, which holds the State accountable for the improper implementation of various gun control laws, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) recently discovered the new DOJ ammunition sales regulations. That new regulation was officially published in the State’s Friday, July 14 Notice Register, but wasn’t clearly accessible to the public until the morning of Monday, July 17.

“In order for citizens and interested groups to be given an opportunity to advocate for their rights and policy preferences, the DOJ must follow the law,” said Craig DeLuz, a lobbyist and spokesperson for the Firearms Policy Coalition. “We are here to make sure they do.”

On July 17, FPC delivered a letter to DOJ advising them that they had not sent any notification about this proposed rulemaking using the DOJ’s e-mail based notification system it established and solicited participation in for that express purpose. The FPC letter also noted that none of the regulation documents that were discussed in the DOJ’s notice could be found on the Attorney General’s Web page listed in the Notice Register. FPC concluded that the public did not receive proper notice and demanded that DOJ remedy the defects.

Just two days later, on July 19, DOJ e-mailed their entire regulatory notice list — which they had initially failed to do — and said that the hearing for public comment, which was originally scheduled to take place August 28, had been pushed back to September 12 — allowing more time for the public and advocacy organizations like FPC to analyze them and weigh in. Additionally, DOJ updated the public notice to reflect a different Web page that contained a working link to the proposed new regulations and forms.

“When law-abiding citizens and small businesses risk fines and jail time for not following the law, the least the DOJ can do is follow the law themselves,” commented DeLuz. “While their latest move is a step in the right direction, they still have a long way to go. We’ll be keeping an eye on them.”

At www.DOJregwatch.com and its companion page, www.bulletbuttonban.com, FPC tracks DOJ firearm-related rulemakings and provides the public with links to the documents and updates. FPC’s goal is to ensure that the regulations proposed are legal, available to the public, and follow all public notice and comment requirements in the California Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and applicable laws.

So far, FPC has so far been successful in repeatedly thwarting DOJ’s attempts to create law by executive fiat under the guise of the regulatory process. Previously, DOJ was forced to withdraw its proposed “large capacity magazine” and “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” regulations. More recently, the Office of Administrative Law rejected DOJ’s second attempt at issuing “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” regulations.

One Way To Fight Dead Of Night Gun Regulations

The California Department of Justice submitted a series of regulations relating to “assault weapon bullet button” laws to the Office of Administrative Law. They wanted these regulations to go into effect with no notice and no public comment. When Craig DeLuz of the Firearms Policy Coalition got wind of this he went to the DOJ’s office and asked to inspect these regulations. While this seems reasonable to most people, he was denied.

As a result of this denial, DeLuz, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the CalGuns Foundation filed suit in California state court on Friday alleging a violation of both the California state constitution and the Public Records Act. Alinsky’s 4th rule for radicals says to make the opposition live up to its own book of rules and FOIA/Public Records Act laws are (or used to be) a darling of progressives.

From the FPC on the lawsuit:

SACRAMENTO, CA (June 30, 2017) — Today, Sacramento resident Craig DeLuz, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and The Calguns Foundation (CGF) have announced a new legal action intended to ensure that the California Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot hide its proposed regulations from the public. The action was filed after DeLuz and two civil rights advocacy organizations sought access to DOJ regulations on so-called “assault weapon” firearms so that they could review them and inform the public, but were denied.

The petitioners are represented by Paul Nicholas Boylan, an attorney based in Davis specializing in records access and government transparency issues.

In May, the Department of Justice submitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) a set of regulations relating to the “Bullet Button Assault Weapons” laws that were passed and signed into law in 2016. Notably, the DOJ had submitted the regulations under the OAL’s “file & print” process, which means that the DOJ wanted the regulations to be put into law without any public notice or comment as would usually be required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

When that action was discovered, DeLuz went to the DOJ’s office and asked to inspect them so that he could let California gun owners know what they contained and pass information back to the groups’ legal counsel for review. But the Department turned him away at the door, claiming that the documents were “draft regulations” and “not available for public inspection” — effectively, keeping the regulations secret from 39 million Californians even though they could have become law.

“My clients recognize that the work the Department of Justice performs directly affects the rights of millions of people,” Boylan said. “The people of California have a constitutional right to examine how and why public agencies make decisions that impact other fundamental rights, and the DOJ is no exception.”

“If a record relates to the public’s business, then the public agency that holds the record must be provided to anyone who wants to see it. That’s the law, and the DOJ must follow it,” Boylan concluded.

“When the Department of Justice denied us access to their submitted regulations and told me that they were not available for public inspection, I was outraged and insulted,” said Craig DeLuz, FPC’s California lobbyist and a spokesperson for the organizations. “Those who claim to enforce the law should be expected to follow it.”

“The California Constitution and Public Records Act make it clear that people have a right to access and inspect information concerning the conduct of the people’s business,” said Brandon Combs, the president of FPC and executive director of CGF. “We know that the Department will have more firearm and ammunition regulations coming out over the coming months, and we will not allow them to use bad faith tactics to deny the people information about these important issues.”

To help inform law-abiding gun owners about the status of the “assault weapons” laws and regulations, Firearms Policy Coalition has established a Web site at BulletButtonBan.com where it posts news and information about the issue.

Firearms Policy Coalition Sues California on First Amendment Grounds – Again

The Firearms Policy Coalition has sued the Legislative Counsel of California, Diane Boyer-Vine, for her attempts to suppress free speech. The suit centers around a blog post that posted publicly available addresses and phone numbers of Assembly members who voted for gun control. The post by FPC member “Publius” on his or her blog, The Real Write Winger, was removed by WordPress.com after the Legislative Counsel said it violated California law. The suit, as described in the press release below, seeks to have California Government
Code section 6254.21(c) declared unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement.

This is the second lawsuit this year that the Firearms Policy Coalition has brought this year on First Amendment grounds. In the first lawsuit which they won, they challenged the California Legislature’s ban on the use of video footage from floor debates in political ads. This is an interesting tactic as it forces judges to apply, in most cases, strict scrutiny.

More on the lawsuit and the whole back story is below:

SACRAMENTO (August 5, 2016) A just-filed First Amendment lawsuit challenges the State of California’s attempt to censor a political blog using an unusual and unconstitutional “takedown” process authorized by a state statute. The lawsuit is funded by the Firearms Policy Coalition, and filed on behalf of one of the Coalition’s members.

“Publius” (a pseudonym, since the challenged law carries a criminal penalty) runs a political blog under the alias “The Real Write Wringer” and writes extensively about California politics, civil liberties, and the Second Amendment.

The case, Doe Publius v. Diane Boyer-Vine, Legislative Counsel of California, seeks a restraining order against and challenges California Government Code section 6254.21(c), which broadly restricts the publication of the home address or telephone number of any “elected or appointed official” on the Internet.

Following California Governor Jerry Brown’s July 1 signing of six new gun control laws, the FPC member (pseudonymized as “Publius” in the lawsuit due to potential criminal liability) published a post on July 5 saying, in part, “… below is the names, home addresses, and home phone numbers of all the legislators who decided to make you a criminal if you don’t abide by their dictates. So below is the current tyrant registry. These are the people who voted to send you to prison if you exercise your rights and liberties. This will be a constantly updated list depending on future votes ….”

Soon after, the political blog’s hosting site, WordPress.com, received a censorious takedown letter from the California Legislative Counsel threatening litigation if the “tyrant registry” wasn’t removed due to the “grave risk” that it supposedly posed to the safety of elected officials.

In her letter, Deputy Legislative Counsel Kathryn Londenberg told WordPress.com that “My office represents the California State Legislature” and that it had “come to [their] attention that the home addresses of 14 Senators and 26 Assembly Members have been publically [sic] posted on an Internet Web site hosted by you without the permission of these elected officials.” She went on to say that if the content was not taken down within 48 hours, “we reserve the right to file an action seeking injunctive relief, as well as associated court costs and attorney’s fees.”

WordPress.com, which sees about 83 million unique monthly visits, and Automattic capitulated immediately, removing Publius’ “tyrant registry” content and subsequently barring them from publishing any similar content.

“Our Publius lawsuit argues that a State of California statute and the Legislative Counsel’s demand letter threatening legal action and penalties unconstitutionally forced WordPress into taking down the material,” explained Brandon Combs, president of Firearms Policy Coalition.

“Our member’s truthful, non-threatening speech was attacked mere days after the elected subjects of their speech carpet-bombed the Bill of Rights in the largest legislative attack on Second Amendment rights in decades.”

“FPC will not tolerate it or its members voices being censored by any government.”

“The First Amendment protects the publication of facts about government officials, especially facts drawn from the public record,” explained Eugene Volokh, an attorney and UCLA law professor working on the Publius case.

“Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t protect true threats of violence, but the statute and the California government’s demand letter forbid all publication of these facts, whether or not accompanied by threats.”

The publication of legislators’ addresses and phone numbers can serve a variety of lawful purposes. For example, residential picketing is allowed in many places, and concerned citizens can hardly engage in such picketing to demand action from their legislators without knowing where they live.

And even where a local government has a valid content-neutral restriction on residential picketing, marching through residential neighborhoods, or even walking a route in front of an entire block of houses, is likely constitutionally protected conduct.

In Brayshaw v. City of Tallahassee, 709 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (N.D. Fla. 2010), the ACLU of Florida challenged a similar statute and got it struck down in an order by United States District Court Judge Richard Smoak, who held that the Florida law was facially “invalid as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”

Following the victory, Randall Marshall, ACLU of Florida Legal Director, said that it “cannot be a crime to publish truthful information. With very rare exceptions, courts protect the publication of truthful information that is already available to the public.”

Publius is represented by Bradley Benbrook and Stephen Duvernay of Benbrook Law Group as well as Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor who has written and taught extensively about the First and Second Amendments.

Before joining the UCLA faculty 20 years ago, Volokh clerked for Judge Alex Kozinski of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and Justice Sandra Day O’Connor of the U.S. Supreme Court. He also operates the popular legal blog “The Volokh Conspiracy,” now hosted at the Washington Post.

A copy of the complaint, which includes exhibits containing the censored content, can be viewed or downloaded at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/2016-08-05-Complaint-with-Exhibits-filed.pdf.

Life Under The Safety For All Act

If you live in California or merely are a shooter visiting the state, you will want to watch the following futuristic video. If you think this could only happen in California, think again.

I had a similar experience in O’Fallon, Illinois many years ago when visiting Ron-Jo’s Gun Store. I saw some .30-06 ammo in M1 Garand stripper clips at a decent price. When I went to buy it I was asked for my FOID card. I was told that I needed either that that or a non-resident Illinois hunting license to purchase ammunition. Needless to say but I went away disappointed and without any ammunition. It was also the first time I had even heard of a FOID or Firearms Owner Identification card.

The Law Center Against Gun Violence (sic) helped draft this ballot initiative for Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. Their push for gun control may seem idiotic but they do have access to very good attorneys who can draft initiatives like this with no wiggle room. Let’s put it this way – they are smart enough to realize that without ammunition, a firearm is merely an expensive piece of metal (and wood and plastic).

I see this initiative as another move by the elites to keep the masses under their thumb. The elites will always have their own armed guards and police forces. Without a means to self-defense, the masses will become even more dependent upon a government controlled by the elites for protection. Protection that as we have been told by the Supreme Court they are not required to provide.

So What If They Outlawed The Bullet Button

The gun prohibitionists in California thought they were sticking it to gun owners when they banned the “bullet button”. The two bills signed on Friday by Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) which banned the “bullet button”, AB 1135 and SB 880, have very similar language. The laws said that to be exempt from consideration as an “assault weapon” the firearm must have a fixed magazine.

(b)  For purposes of this section, “fixed magazine” means an ammunition
feeding device contained in, or permanently attached to, a firearm in such
a manner that the device cannot be removed without disassembly of the
firearm action

Darin Prince, the inventor of the original Bullet Button, responded with something that will drive the gun prohibitionists nuts because it fits within the letter of the law yet allows you to replace a magazine very quickly. It may not be as quick as what I can do in a free state but it seems every bit as quick as a “bullet button”.

California Gun Owners Get Screwed — Again

Gov. Jerry Brown (D-CA) did his usual splitting of the baby with regard to gun control bills today. He signed six and vetoed five. As per the usual lately, gun prohibitionists won much more than they lost and the Constitution was spit on once again.

The bills signed creates a registry of ammo owners, bans loaning of guns between family members and friends, bans the bullet button, adds non-violent misdemeanors as a prohibiting factor for gun purchases, and, last but not least, bans possession of all magazines with more than a 10-round capacity. On this last measure there is no grandfathering of existing magazines.

Brown said he was signing these bills “to enhance public safety by tightening our existing laws in a responsible and focused manner”. Of course, none of these bills would prevent further terrorist attacks like in San Bernardino or Orlando.

The release below from the Firearms Policy Coalition gives more details:

California Governor Jerry
Brown Guns Down the Constitution
Governor Jerry Brown signs 6, vetoes 4 gun
control bills that were passed by the California Legislature yesterday.
morning, four-term Governor Jerry Brown conspired with other members of the
State’s corrupt one-party majority to make it easier for criminals and
terrorists to kill innocent people, said civil rights advocacy organization
Firearms Policy Coalition.
Brown signed six and
vetoed four of the eleven anti-gun, pro-terror bills that were passed by the
Legislature yesterday.
(Note – there was a 5th anti-gun vetoed – AB1176)
The “Gunpocalypse”
legislation signed by the Governor today will create new criminal liabilities
affecting millions of law-abiding people, cost the state tens of millions of
dollars in new fees and fines, and eviscerate fundamental, individual rights.
“These are
constitutionally-illegitimate laws passed by a patently illegitimate government
that had the audacity to attack and criminalize millions of its own people in Stalin-esque
fashion,” said Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs.
“We expect mass
non-compliance with these laws and encourage good, peaceful Californians to
carefully consider the risks of voluntarily identifying their firearms, magazines,
and ammunition to law enforcement officials, especially the California Department
of Justice.”
The Legislature
suspended nearly every procedural rule to rush these anti-gun, ISIS-enabling
bills through to Brown before he left for Europe, a place that may have served
as the model for his unconstitutional firearm policies.  Now that the first phase of their year-long
campaign to support violent criminals and terrorists is complete, the members
of the Legislature who passed the bills have left Sacramento for a month-long,
taxpayer-funded vacation.
“The Legislature ignored
every rule in the book to fast-track their civilian disarmament agenda and herd
the people into a state-wide gun-free-zone,” said Craig DeLuz, the director of
public and legislative affairs for Firearms Policy Coalition.
Continued DeLuz, “There
are still a dozen anti-gun bills pending in the Legislature, and while Governor
Brown’s actions today were disturbing, Firearms Policy Coalition and our
members will continue to fight to defend and restore the Second Amendment in
With Senate Bill 1446¾ a statewide,
confiscatory ban on lawfully-possessed “large-capacity” magazines
¾law enforcement interests
once again cut shady deals to exempt their retired members from the long reach
of the new gun control laws.
Earlier this year,
Firearms Policy Coalition, two other civil rights groups, and a number of
individuals filed a federal civil rights lawsuit–captioned Garcia v. Attorney General Kamala Harris–that challenges
California’s gun law exemptions for retired law enforcement officers on
Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection grounds.
“Jerry Brown and the
California Legislature have openly declared war on gun owners and the Bill of
Rights,” continued Combs. “By signing the bills that he did, Governor Brown
showed us that he has no respect for the rule of law, reason, or law-abiding
people. I submit that he and his ilk deserve the same contempt in return.”
“The government would be
wise to remember that there are more California residents with guns than there
are government officials to take them away. To coin a phrase, ‘come and take it’,”
Combs concluded.
The Governor signed the
following bills today:
AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally-protected
firearms that have magazine locking devices.
AB 1511 (Santiago): Criminalizes loaning of firearms between
personally known, law-abiding adults, including family members, sportspersons,
and competitors.
AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes a non-violent misdemeanor a prohibiting
SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have
magazine locking devices.
SB 1235 (de Leon): New restrictions on ammunition purchases;
creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.
SB 1446 (Hancock): Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully-possessed
standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 round;
exemption for retired police
The Governor vetoed the
following bills today:
AB 1673 (Gipson): Would have redefined “firearms” to include
objects that are not firearms
AB 1674 (Santiago): Would have banned buying more than one firearm of
any type within a 30-day period
AB 2607 (Ting): Would have dramatically expanded the reach of
secret “Gun Violence Restraining Orders”
SB 894 (Jackson): Would have re-victimized victims of theft by
criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms

AB 857 (Cooper), which would require that serial numbers be
placed on un-serialized firearms manufactured going back 50 years and on all
new home-built firearms, is still pending. 

Now For Some Good News Out Of California

It seems like all the news coming out of California today was uniformly bad. However, there is one bright spot. As I reported two weeks ago, two firearms groups plus a number of individual plaintiffs sued for a restraining order against the California law that bans the use of the video feed from the California legislature for political purposes. UCLA Law Professor Eugene Volokh is one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs and he wrote about the case at this morning on the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog.

As Firearms Policy Coalition reported a few hours ago on Facebook, US District Court Judge Morrison England has granted the request for a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Cal. Gov. Code § 9026.5. Professor Volokh also has confirmed that in a short post as well.

This is a win for the First Amendment and the Second Amendment. The Firearms Policy Coalition Second Amendment Defense Committee and others can now use video from the legislature in ads opposing Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s gun control initiative.

UPDATE: Gene Hoffman of CalGuns Foundation just pointed out something that I missed. The same Judge Morrison England who ruled for the FPCSADC on First Amendment grounds was the same Judge England whose decision against concealed carry in the Richards case was upheld in today’s ruling from the 9th Circuit. How ironic.

More Bad News Out Of California

Gunpocalypse Round II will come for California gun owners on Tuesday, June 14th, as another round of anti-gun legislation will come up for a vote before the relevant committees. The release from the Firearms Policy Coalition with more details is below.

California Legislature to vote on 11 anti-gun
bills in one day.
SACRAMENTO – On Tuesday, June 14th  at 9A.M., the California Legislature will
hear the most anti-gun bills it’s heard in one day; spread out over both houses
and three different committees The only description that seems appropriate is
“Gunpocalypse”. This is the second round of the same push to turn the law-abiding
into overnight criminals— aka Gunpocalypse: Round 2.
“Anti-gun legislators are playing a dangerous
game of chicken with our civil rights”, says Craig DeLuz, the Director of
Public and Legislative Affairs for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). “They
are ignoring their own rules, while playing fast and loose with the facts; all
to see who can beat Gavin Newsom in being the first to take away our Second
Amendment Rights.”
DeLuz is referring to a three-way race between
Senate Pro Tempore Kevin de Leon (D-Los Angeles), Assembly Speaker Anthony
Rendon (D-Paramount) and Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, who’s trying to qualify an
initiative for the November ballot; to see who can get their package of
anti-gun-owner bills passed into law first.
Sen. de Leon’s package of bills, most of which
will be heard in the Assembly Committee on Public Safety on Tuesday June 14th,
  •  SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and
    constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
  • SB 894 (Jackson): Re-victimizes victims
    by criminalizing the failure to report lost and stolen firearms.
  • SB 1235 (de Leon): Restrictions on
    ammunition purchases, creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.
  • SB 1407 (de Leon): Retroactively requires
    serial numbers to be placed on firearms dating back at least 50 years.
  •   SB 1446 (Hancock): Confiscation of
    lawfully acquired, standard capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  • SB 1006 (Wolk):  University of California taxpayer funding for
    gun control research. (This bill will be heard the same day in the Assembly
    Committee on Higher Education.)

Meanwhile, at the same
exact time Asm. Rendon’s collection of bills will be heard in Senate Public
Safety. That package consists of:

  • AB 1664 (Levine): Bans common and
    constitutionally protected firearms that have magazine locking devices.
  • AB 1673 (Gipson): Redefines “firearms” to
    include items that are not firearms.
  •  AB 1674 (Santiago): Bans buying more than
    one firearm within a 30-day period.
  • AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes it a crime to
    fail to report a gun lost or stolen.
  •   AB 2607 (Ting): Dramatically expands
    who can request a Gun Violence Restraining order.

Punching Back Twice As Hard

Lt. Gov Gavin Newsom (D-CA) hopes to ride his Orwellian-named “Safety for All” initiative to the Governor’s Mansion in Sacramento.  In addition to banning standard capacity magazines, it would mandate background checks akin to a NICS check just to buy ammunition. Moreover, it would ban the private sale or transfer of ammunition. The LA Times reports that much of the initiative wording came from the Legal Center to Prevent Gun Violence (sic).

It appears that Newsom’s professional signature gatherers have accumulated enough names to get it on the ballot in November. Once certified, the battle begins in earnest.

The Coalition for Civil Liberties is made up of a number of diverse groups with one objective in mind – defeat Newsom’s initiative. You have the NRA-affiliated California Rifle & Pistol Association on one end and the Gun Owners of California on the other with the Pink Pistols in the middle. You can’t get more diverse than that!

Women and the LGBTQ communities are traditional Democratic constituencies in California. The Coalition is taking aim directly at those groups to drive a wedge between them and the ammo prohibitionists. They gained a lot of attention with a web ad featuring Nicki Stallard, a trans-gendered woman, and a gun rights activist. (As an aside, I’ve met Nicki at more than one Gun Rights Policy Conference)

Now they are taking it to TV with a very powerful black and white ad featuring a woman being attacked in a parking garage. HotAir reports that Republican strategist Richard Grennell is behind the ad.

Frankly, I don’t care who is behind the ad. I’m just happy that it is so powerful.