Gavin’s Gambit: Push Bill Creating ‘Right of Action’ Against Gunmakers

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has launched an attack on the Second Amendment in reaction to a Supreme Court decision on a Texas abortion law.

U.S.A.-( Anti-gun California Gov. Gavin Newsom has launched a new effort to “empower private citizens to enforce a ban on the manufacture and sale of assault weapons in the state,” according to NPR.

The far-left governor, “outraged” by the Supreme Court’s decision last week on the abortion case in Texas “allowing the state to ban most abortion services,” declared in a news release that he’s already ordered his staff in Sacramento to work with the Legislature and the Attorney General on legislation to create “a right of action” to allow private citizens to sue for injunctive relief, and damages of $10,000 per violation plus court costs and attorney’s fees, against anyone who manufacturers, distributors or retailers who sell a so-called “assault weapon” or “ghost gun kit or parts” in the Golden State.

“If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that,” Newsom said in a prepared statement.

The Texas law, NPR explained, “allows private citizens to enforce the ban, empowering them to sue abortion clinics and anyone else who ‘aids and abets’ with the process,” while legal challenges will be allowed to proceed against the law.

Newsom’s proposal is to use this same reasoning to attack the Second Amendment rights of California citizens. But this is not going to be a cakewalk through the Sacramento Legislature.

Here is the full text of Newsom’s statement:

“I am outraged by yesterday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision allowing Texas’s ban on most abortion services to remain in place, and largely endorsing Texas’s scheme to insulate its law from the fundamental protections of Roe v. Wade. But if states can now shield their laws from review by the federal courts that compare assault weapons to Swiss Army knives, then California will use that authority to protect people’s lives, where Texas used it to put women in harm’s way.

“I have directed my staff to work with the Legislature and the Attorney General on a bill that would create a right of action allowing private citizens to seek injunctive relief, and statutory damages of at least $10,000 per violation plus costs and attorney’s fees, against anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California. If the most efficient way to keep these devastating weapons off our streets is to add the threat of private lawsuits, we should do just that.”

Republican State Sen. Bran Dahle is reportedly ready to oppose Newsom’s idea, calling it a “stunt.”

“The right to bear arms is different than the right to have an abortion. The right to have an abortion is not a constitutional amendment. So I think he’s way off base,” Dahle told NPR. “I think he’s just using it as an opportunity to grandstand.”

The Sacramento Bee noted, “Legal experts had predicted that other states would try to copy the tactic used in the Texas abortion law, which attempts to circumvent legal challenges by giving private citizens the power to sue.”

But just how far can such a law go? Is this simply a strategy to tie up gunmakers, retailers, wholesalers and gunsmiths in legal tangles, costing them millions of dollars?

The Sacramento Bee pointed to Justice Sonya Sotomayor’s warning that the court ruling on the Texas law would “clear the way” for other states to follow the Lone Star State strategy for targeting other rights. Newsom appears to be unabashedly doing just that.

However, there is another side to this, which other industries, such as automakers, should consider. What’s to prevent Newsom or some future governor and California legislature from encouraging lawsuits by environmentalists to, say, attack the use of gas-powered automobiles in the state?

Perhaps reasons like this are why Jonathan Turley, writing at Fox News, argues the law “won’t work.”

“Legally, that is,” he observes. “It will be hugely successful politically, but not without costs to the state and potential litigants.”

Turley, a Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University, is not given to wild speculation. So, when he says the kind of law Newsom wants would amount to a legal and political disaster, chances are pretty good that’s what will happen.

He calls Newsom’s proposed law “clearly unconstitutional.” That will be up to the courts to determine, but what happens in the meantime?

Perhaps it will be as Turley suggests: “Newsom will seize the moment in terms of popularity while leaving others to bear the costs in later failed litigation.”

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Dave Workman



Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Alan in NH

This could very well blow up in their faces when they start losing these lawsuits and are forced to pay all court costs.


12.21.07 HR 2640, NRA’s Latest “Victory.”

We commend Congress for strengthening the Brady check.” -Paul Helmke
“When NRA & I agree you know it’ll become law.” –Schumer

Thanks for helping the gun grabbers spin it, Dave

Last edited 1 year ago by Russn8r

they ignore the constitution so why would a law bother them


Yep, and the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. It doesn’t take one dime out of a politician’s pocket whenever they lose.


First, the law he is proposing goes against Federal law and should be tossed out. Any case that goes up for appeal or even to trail should lose and that brings us to another point; we need a law that makes the loser pay all cost and damages to the other party. That should include the State when they loose and it should include attorneys who knowingly bring a suit that is wrongful. Second this is just one more reason we need a really big saw, start at the border with Mexico and head north to Canada. Them watch them… Read more »


Well if you think about it, all gun laws are unconstitutional. And what are the chances of the court throwing it out, with maybe the exception of the Supreme Court? And that is many years down the road from now. Instead of sawing it off, just build a wall around the entire state after giving those who wish to leave the place 30 days to do so. After that 30 days no one can enter or leave by any means without a passport. And those who come out are given a time when they have to reenter or they are… Read more »


So yet another reason for the gun industry to leave CA and cease all sales there. If they don’t and get sued out of business, too bad. They have supported this anti-2A state for far too long for the sake of the bottom line. They need to put their money where their mouth is, Barrett has shown them how.


Even retail sales?


Yes, ALL sales.



Should they stop all shipments to Virginia?


Did you read my post? They can continue to do business in a state that hates them and put up with the nonsense if they want. But don’t blow smoke up my butt about being 2A supporting and ‘working from the inside’ to correct the problem. It’s all only about their bottom line and they only care about 2A when it affects that.


I sure did read your post.

Virginia put numerous gun control laws in place when their legislature flipped. Should all the pro 2nd Amendment voters in Virginia not be able to buy firearms?

Why would you not want the more than 1 million people who are pro 2nd Amendment (much more so than Will/TEX) living in California to be able to buy firearms?

USMC0351Grunt says if pro 2nd Amendmenet voters flee (like he did), they are cowards.

You say, if pro 2nd Amendment voters stay, they shouldn’t be able to buy firearms.


Because the only way you’re going to end this nonsense is to give them what they want. ‘no guns’. Then let them see how that works out. As to the pro 2A they have a choice to move or stay. Tired of wasting time and money on states like this. If VA doesn’t get turned around real fast, yeah them too.


“They?” The pro 2nd Amendment voters didn’t want “no guns.”

How about Florida?

South Carolina?

Can you provide a list of states that firearm companies should not ship firearms?


Don’t try to argue to extremes, it only makes you look foolish when you keep moving the goal posts. The article was about CA, try to stay on topic.


You are trying to draw some kind of line – where is it?


Do you want John Petrolino to not be able to buy a firearm? NJ gun laws are as bad as CA.

I’m not moving goal posts – I don’t have any goal posts on where firearm manufacturers should sell firearms to “civilians.” I’m in support of them to continue to sell them everywhere.

There are a lot of pro 2nd Amendment voters in states with lots of gun control laws. I don’t want them to be unable to buy a firearm.


Stop being pedantic. Reading comprehension is fundamental to honest and clear communication. I stated my reasons and thoughts on this article which is about CA as I stated above.

Now have a nice day, troll.


That is not what pedantic means.

Your proposal would prevent pro 2nd Amendment people from being able to buy a firearm.

My communication is honest and clear – I don’t want firearm manufacturers to self-impose gun control restrictions that are worse than what politicians and LE have already implemented.

It’s a bad idea for CA and the reasons you gave for doing it in CA would apply to other states as well.

Last edited 1 year ago by JSNMGC


overly concerned with minute details or formalisms, especially in teaching.

You are trying to draw some kind of line – where is it?
Do you want John Petrolino to not be able to buy a firearm? NJ gun laws are as bad as CA.


That’s the definition, but that is not what I was doing. I objected to the entire substance of your proposal.

You also misused “troll” as well. A troll is not someone who disagrees with you.


Beyond that , all firearms to police, security , Cali National Guard, should also be boycotted by the firearms industry. The “scorched earth “ approach is the only way Commiefornia will ever learn. Yes, Barret has the right idea.


By “beyond that,” do you mean you want firearm manufacturers to not sell to consumers?


I approve of this message. Sell all you want to the private consumers. Sell nothing to gun controlling states police, security services, private protection, etc. The National Guard and the military would likely be out of their control, since contracts like those are let on a huge basis, they have no control where the weapons go, and count on those types of contracts to keep the doors open. But when the police in places like CA, MA, NJ, NY, VA, and any of the other states that are anathema to the citizens rights to own and carry guns, start to… Read more »


They should move to Texas everyone else is, Since Gavin has shown he has zero respect for anything in the constition.
I keep hoping for the commies to actually force our hand against them instead of using their bought off courts and feds


CEASE ALL sales of weapons and ammunition to any State governmental offices and its subdivisions in its entirety. Sales to INDIVIDUAL American Citizens MUST be allowed!!

Doug G.

The weather can’t be THAT good. LOL.


Any weather is better than it is in California. Think about for a moment. CA, is in the business of selling a fantasy. Do you know that where I live in the summer is usually warmer/hotter than CA? And no I don’t live in the south. And I can go to the beach in the morning and go ice skating in the afternoon during the summer. And in the winter I can go snow skiing in the morning and swimming in the afternoon. Each I should have said with in an hour. And still go shopping outside if I want… Read more »


Newsom is an Oath Breaking Anti-Constitutional, Anti-American, Enemy of the United States of America, that needs to be held accountable for his actions. This is how the Nazi’s took control of Germany during the middle1930’s…


This has already happened to Remington and not in Californa either . Gavin is a idiot and thinks that what is going on in Texas over abortion gives him.the right not honor the constitution and our second amendment rights . Let’s see how that flies with the Supreme court ? All manufactures should shudder at the possibility that this could become an acceptable solution to solve crime and violence . Chevrolet , Ford , Toyota, Chrysler , GMC and the rest of you better hire a team of lawyers as you will be held accountable if a drunk kills somebody… Read more »


They like to blame the inanimate thing because the animate thing using the inanimate thing is most likely a democrat voter. They don’t want that to be pointed out.

Doug G.

Hey, but the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals will side with him, you gotta figure.


Wow if Grusome can get away with making a law like this can someone make a law that would allow a citizen to sue the president and vice president for not securing our borders allowing people to illegally enter our country, get drunk and kill two innocent American citizens? I am sure there is a husband that just lost his wife and daughter to that exact circumstance that would like to apply a law like that.

Oh, that would make too much sense wouldn’t it?


It will be poetic that, if passed, Newsome’s State and/or Newsome personally would be hung from that petard:

“For ’tis the sport to have the enginer / Hoist with his own petar; and’t shall go hard” ~WS

American Cynic

Whenever some drunk driver kills someone, why not clamber to have all cars confiscated, charge GM and FORD with a crime.

Seemingly, owning and driving a car is a bipartisan pastime. The fact that according to NHTSA, 10,511 people died in alcohol-related accidents in 2018. You would think that this would be a more prevalent issue on the minds of Progressive Leftists, but there is no political profit in it for them.

They cannot fully appreciate their end game unless they first disam all of us.


and allow them to sue the comany who brewed the hootch that was the intoxicant imbibed by the driver at fault…..


Tyrants like swing music. They like to swing.

Son of Waylon

Newsome is a greedy spoiled crapition, he was planned to be recalled, but palosi came to his rescue, I’ll never comply


you know nancy is his aunt, right.


America has lost a huge sector of the manufacturing base. Now, the principle product is lawsuits.


From the same family of petty tyrants that brought you Pelosi. Sic semper tyrannis.


wht the Gabbling Nuisance fails to comprehend is that nowhere in the US Constituiton is there any right to KILL anyone else, born or not yet born. The key to the Texas law is that it does not deal with the murdering of the unborn directlu, it ONLY establishes the principle that the power to regulate such things is reserved to the STATES and thus OUTSIDE the pruview of FedGov. The basis of this law is that it establishes the STATE as the arbiter of the issue, and denies FedGov that power. Nowhere is FedGov assigned any authority remotely dealing… Read more »



Last edited 1 year ago by Hazcat

If this law passes then all of us should sue our local police force for distributing full auto (actual) assault rifles to their officers. Because unlike privately owned guns, these actually ARE “on the streets” literally every day.


UNconstitutional – illegal – Off the Reservation – Past the Rubicon – beyond Mission Creep – Communist – Marxist – Collectivist – Fabian Socialist – Nazi – Zionist – Despot – Tyrant

Last edited 1 year ago by Tank

Dave W. You have to remember Calif got what they wanted after the Recall-Election, I don’t have any sympathy for them at all!!!!!!!!

AZ Lefty

Remember to thank Texas for this