Proposition 63 Support Continues to Decline as Voters Learn More

Firearms Policy Coalition
Firearms Policy Coalition

Sacramento-( A recent poll of likely voters conducted by USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times shows that not only has support slipped for Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s gubernatorially ambitious Proposition 63, but that when voters are educated about what it really does and learn about the high monetary and societal costs, support drops even further.

The same poll that showed 64% overall support just one month ago now shows 59% total support. Once voters are presented with the arguments, amongst those who have not already voted, support for the measure erodes to 53%, right at the edge of the margin of error. When voters are asked if they support “strongly” or “not so strongly”, strong support plummets to 49% for all voters.

Even more telling, strong support nosedives 10 percentage points, from 49% to 39% among all voters and 14 percentage points among Latinos, when voters are exposed to the competing arguments for and against the initiative.

“I guess that old saying, ‘The truth hurts’ applies when it comes to Prop. 63,” said Stop Prop 63 Committee Spokesman Craig DeLuz. “Prop. 63 is another attempt by Newsom and his 1%, elitist friends to attack law-abiding Californians. They want to replace the ‘War on Drugs’ with ‘The War on law-abiding gun owners’ so they can continue locking up young Black and Latino men.”

Proposition 63, which is opposed by every major statewide law enforcement organization in California as well as civil rights groups, sportsmen and women, and law-abiding gun owners has enjoyed support in recent polls in the high 60 and 70 percentages and even over 82% support in an August poll fielded by University of California, Berkley (IGS). The data show, as voters learn the arguments for and against the proposition, they consistently diminish in their support.

“Gavin Newsom wants to run for Governor on the backs of the law-abiding poor and middle-class. The people have had enough of gated community elitists telling them what to do. His cynical view of politics would harm public safety, burden law enforcement and put law-abiding people in harm’s way,” concluded DeLuz.

About: Stop Prop 63, a grassroots, common-sense effort for rational policy sponsored by Firearms Policy Coalition (FPPC # 1380746), is the official non-partisan committee dedicated to fighting and opposing California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom’s “Safety For All Act” ballot initiative, now Proposition 63. Stop Prop 63 was formed just days after Newsom announced his intention to put his gun control scheme on the November 2016 ballot and has been fighting against the initiative since its inception. More information about Proposition 63 can be found at and

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lewis H Christenson

I strongly oppose this proposition, not because I am a long time, well-trained gun owner. Because it is only another useless unenforceable attempt to over-regulate the gun industry. More of the recently passed gun laws need to be challenged. Restricting purchase of ammo or firearms per month is as ridicules as restricting golfers from purchasing a golf club set or 1 pack of golf balls per month. Yes, golf clubs can be used as a weapon. if the persons seeking office have to use scare tactics to get elected, what are the chances of him doing the right thing for… Read more »

Jim in Conroe

Support is still strong enough to pass this initiative. Time has run out on the effort to educate the public on this issue. As with all elections in California, the liberal majorities in the coastal cities will overwhelm conservative opposition in the more conservative inland areas of the State.

Malcolm Kyle

Prohibition has diverted police resources away from other law enforcement activities with the result that violent crime and crime against property is driven far higher than it would have been otherwise. To the extent that communities divert law enforcement resources from violent crimes to illegal drug offenses the risk of punishment for engaging in violent crime is reduced. The National Firearms Act of 1934 was actually a direct response to the acute rise in prohibition (1919-33) engendered gun violence. PROHIBITION EQUATES TO MORE VIOLENT CRIME WHICH LEADS TO MORE CALLS FOR GUN CONTROL The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada… Read more »


and in many of the states bordering on Canada, which eschewed the folly of alcohol prohibition, the bootleg/rum-running kingpins and their cartels set themselves up to benefit from the organised sale and confiscatory taxation schemes that followed in the wake of the end of prohibition. It took Washington State some ninety years to dump the tyranny resulting, and then only partially, as the board of former bootleggers now masquerading as a taxation management cartel have managed to nearly triple the price of hootch by taxing to near 200% distributor cost. Some retailers have been wise enough to post the price/tax… Read more »