Learn what context and research and reading without confirmation bias means MIner49er.

also, another piece of context you ignored Miner49er: see the part in the article about figuring out how to get the gun back to (i.e. into) California without committing a felony under his own rules – that’s what I was referring to in my OP and in my reply to you above. Because of the lack of specific provisions allowing what I outlined above it would have been a felony for Newsom to try to get the gun back to California – the lawyers could not figure out a way around it because the California gun laws are so bizarre in this area. Newsom was literally denied gun ownership and possession of the gun in California because his own state gun laws would not let him have it IN CALIFORNIA BECAUSE THERE WAS NO WAY UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW HE COULD HAVE LEGALLY GOTTEN IT INTO THE STATE because under California law a California resident must have complete a background check before possession before the firearm can be bought into California – Newsom, a California resident, accepted a gift and became the possessor (with complete video evidence to back it up) without a background check thus unable to bring the gun into California legally.

Learn what context means MIner49er…

“His own state gun laws would not let him have it. They had to call in a team of lawyers to interpret the California gun laws and they were so confusing the lawyers could not figure them out, the very laws Newsom signed into law, and the gun was given back.”

The lawyers could not figure out the California gun laws.

Here’s the thing, Newsom accepted a gifted gun on camera from an out of state source, It was then in his possession and owned legally (in Tennessee or another state that is not California). California law does not have specific spelled out provisions allowing a gifted gun in possession and ownership to be shipped into California by the person (via FFL or other means) who was gifted the gun to the same person who was gifted the gun to be received in California – this is why the lawyers could not figure it out. Thus: “His own state gun laws would not let him have it.”

Its not that gun owners in California actually support the ‘incrementalism’ of the ‘rights as permissions granted by the state’ tyranny of the California gun laws as the creep over time closer and closer to implementing full blown ‘totalitarian’ tyranny. Its that they don’t support the alternative of loosing something else. or something they perceived, or being slammed with it completely with the hope that at some point they will be ‘rescued’ from the tyranny.

For example, gay gun owners in California support a gay or liberal candidate, overall, ’cause ‘gay rights’ ’cause the LGBTQ movement says so.

But when we look in the U.S. and California constitutions we find no mention of specifically ‘gay rights’, like these gay politicians like to frame them as if these people are a different ‘special subset of humans with unique rights no one else has except them’. We even do this in the gun community unwittingly, we have articles on gun blogs about ‘gay’ gun groups like its a different ‘special subset of humans group’. This is because as a ‘special subset of humans’ is how how ‘gay’ view and present their overall ‘community’ because the LGBTQ movement frames it that way.

I have five lab assistants. One of them is a gay gun owner from California who just could no longer stand it. She has outlined this ‘special subset of humans’ ‘gay rights’ concept California uses as the worst thing that ever happened to the gay community in California and how the gay community in California is being led down the path to having no constitutional rights but rather eventually only ‘California permissions’ by the LGBTQ movement support of gay or liberal politicians in California, how the gay community in California is being ‘trained’ generationally to accept the ‘incrementalism’ of tyranny cause ‘gay rights’. She says she suddenly realized it one day when someone asked her ‘what are gay rights?’ and she dutifully started reciting this or that, then the person said ‘but those are the same rights everyone already has gay or not. So why are they only ‘gay rights’ to politicians when they want you to vote for them?’

So with politicians paying special attention to these, using the perception of ‘gay rights’, gay gun owners in California are willing to give away a constitutional right, if even a little at a time, by the LGBTQ community supporting these candidates if they will support their perception of ‘gay rights’. So it gives the appearance these support the California gun laws by these politicians, when in reality not all of them do but rather its the broad support of the politician by those duped by the LGBTQ movement into having them catered to as a ‘special subset of humans group having rights unique only to them’.

“His own state gun laws would not let him have it“

No, all he has to do is follow the law like any other citizen, it’s detailed in the article above:

“The current owner (SIG, I guess) would have to ship it to a California FFL, then Newsom would go there to do his background check and start his ten-day waiting period“

Thanks for the reminder. It’s been awhile since I’ve read the racist history of california gun control. I like to focus the living lawmakers who are responsible for making things even worse.

And point out that they are still very popular in their communities. And many of them are gun owners.

“It appears the editors of The Atlantic are finally willing to entertain an idea that has long been obvious to gun rights supporters. In this case, it’s that the field of “public health” has devolved from a scientific pursuit into a left-wing political project.

On July 7, the lofty periodical published an item titled “How Public Health Discredited Itself,” by John Tierney. Using the field’s woeful, and contradictory, response to the COVID pandemic as a jumping-off point, the former Boston College professor explained how the field had gone astray well before 2020.

Referring to public health, Tierney noted,

A noble profession has been corrupted by politics. This became obvious during the pandemic, but the politicization of the discipline has been going on for half a century. The modern field has redefined the very meaning of public health, and in the process, it has made so many mistakes that it has itself become a hazard to Americans’ health.
…”

https://www.ammoland.com/2025/07/legacy-media-finally-acknowledges-politization-of-public-health/

A defining trait of people that actually want to or are actually willing to commit murder or actually commit suicide is being impatient, and will choose another weapon/means instead of waiting out a ‘waiting period’ are are not deterred by a waiting period.