Gov. Gavin Newsom of California signed legislation that would provide a minimum $10,000 award to residents who successfully sue makers of illegal guns.
SACRAMENTO — On a Saturday night in December, Gov. Gavin Newsom of California was so frustrated by a Supreme Court decision allowing Texas residents to sue abortion providers that he went straight to social media to call for legislation allowing private citizens to enforce his own state’s gun laws.
It sounded so tit-for-tat that many Californians wondered if he was just trying to get a rise out of one of his favorite foils, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas. Others doubted he was serious because it would have meant embracing a bounty system of enforcement that he considered legally dubious.
Seven months later, Mr. Newsom not only signed the bill on Friday, but he has leaned harder than ever into his rhetoric against Republicans. He ran ads in Florida and Texas attacking the states’ Republican governors, Ron DeSantis and Mr. Abbott. He rebuked other states for banning abortion, as well as ripped the Supreme Court for its recent decisions overturning Roe v. Wade and giving Americans a broad right to arm themselves in public.
While Mr. Newsom has repeatedly insisted that he has no intention of running for the White House in 2024, his actions at times seem to belie his statements. The Florida ad — a $105,000 spot worth more in free publicity — turned heads in national political circles. So did his visit to Washington this month and his declarations this spring that fellow Democrats were too meekly responding to Republican moves.
“I think he realizes that Democrats are hungry for a hero,” said Kim Nalder, a political science professor at California State University, Sacramento. “He’s building a profile as an alternative on the left to this aggressive policymaking we’ve seen by Republicans in recent years.”
No piece of legislation better encapsulates Mr. Newsom’s fight-fire-with-fire attitude than the bill co-opting a Texas anti-abortion tactic to enforce California bans on assault weapons and ghost guns.
Senate Bill 1327 aims to bury those who deal in banned guns in litigation. Awards of at least $10,000 per weapon, and legal fees, will be offered to plaintiffs who successfully sue anyone who imports, distributes, manufactures or sells assault-style weapons, .50-caliber rifles, guns without serial numbers or parts that can be used to build firearms that are banned in California.
“No one is saying you can’t have a gun,” said State Senator Bob Hertzberg, a veteran San Fernando Valley Democrat who was tapped by the governor to craft and shepherd the complex legislation. “We’re just saying there’s no constitutional right to an AR-15, a .50-caliber machine gun or a ghost gun with the serial number filed off.”
The governor and Senator Hertzberg see S.B. 1327 as a way to test the Supreme Court, arguing that the justices cannot reject California’s law if it lets the Texas abortion law stand. The situation also presents an irresistible opportunity for Mr. Newsom to criticize Texas on the national stage.
Read More on Abortion Issues in America
- Medication Abortion on Campus: Some students want colleges to provide the abortion pill. But even in states that protect abortion rights, schools are proceeding with caution.
- In Ohio: The case of a 10-year-old rape victim who was forced to travel out of state to terminate her pregnancy has become the focus of a heated debate over what new abortion bans mean for the lives of the youngest patients and their bodies.
- Medical Exceptions: Of the 13 states with trigger abortion bans, all make exceptions for abortions to save the life of the mother. But what defines a medical emergency?
- Hurdles to Miscarriage Care: Since the reversal of Roe, some patients have had trouble obtaining miscarriage treatments, which are identical to those for abortions.
On Friday, Mr. Newsom took out ads in three Texas newspapers rebuking Governor Abbott, spending $30,000, according to a campaign spokesman, Nathan Click. The full-page spread replaces the word “abortion” with “gun violence” in an Abbott quote about Texas’ abortion law. It also calls the gun enforcement legislation “California’s answer to Texas’ perverse bill that placed bounties on doctors and patients.”
Mr. Abbott’s office responded by attacking California’s business climate. “Governor Newsom should focus on all the jobs and businesses that are leaving California and coming to Texas,” Renae Eze, Mr. Abbott’s press secretary, said in a statement.
The California bill is the capstone of a sweeping package of firearm restrictions that Mr. Newsom has signed this month. The new laws include fresh limits on firearm advertising to minors; intensified restrictions on unregistered “ghost guns”; and a 10-year ban on firearm possession for those convicted of child abuse or elder abuse.
Mr. Newsom on Friday signed S.B. 1327 at Santa Monica College, where a deadly mass shooting occurred in 2013. He said he intended to continue going after gun manufacturers and the gun rights movement, observing that “right now, if you look at what’s going on across this country, we’re not winning. We’re not making demonstrable progress.”
“I assure you, this is not where we end,” Mr. Newsom said. “It’s time to put them on the defense. We’re sick and tired of being on the defense in this movement.”
The California laws come as mass shootings have intensified pressure for action on gun violence, as death tolls have mounted this year from Buffalo to Uvalde, Texas. Last month, President Biden signed the most significant gun violence legislation to clear Congress in nearly three decades, expanding the background check system for gun buyers under 21 and setting aside millions of dollars so states to enact “red flag” laws that allow the authorities to temporarily confiscate guns from people who are deemed dangerous.
But the congressional response, limited by a powerful gun lobby and deep partisan polarization, has been a far cry from the comprehensive solutions that many gun violence researchers feel are needed. And the conservative 6-3 majority on the Supreme Court has signaled an inclination to not only preserve, but also further expand gun rights.
That has left states led by Democrats to seek their own solutions. The search has extended beyond gun violence policies as the court’s rulings have upended reproductive rights and placed L.G.B.T.Q. protections and other civil liberties at risk. Increasingly, the charge from the left has been led by Mr. Newsom, who has had political capital to spare since last year, when he crushed a Republican-led recall.
Dan Schnur, a former Republican strategist who now teaches political science at the University of Southern California and the University of California, Berkeley, said that the governor’s motives were easy to deduce: Mr. Newsom believes his “California way” is a success, and using a national platform to call out Republicans helps rally constituents across the many media markets in his own immense state.
Also, Mr. Schnur said, “He is running for president.”
Mr. Newsom has said that he has “subzero interest” in the White House. “But just being seen as a player on the national stage serves him, even if he never runs,” Mr. Schnur said. “Mario Cuomo played that game for years.”
California’s gun laws are among America’s strictest, helping the state deliver one of the nation’s lowest rates of gun deaths. In 2020, the state’s rate of firearm mortality was about 40 percent lower than the national average, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Public Policy Institute of California has determined that Californians are about 25 percent less likely to die in mass shootings, compared with residents of other states.
California’s gun policies, however, have been strained as conservative federal judges, many appointed by the Trump administration, have taken an increasingly hard line on Second Amendment rights.
The California gun bounty law is expected to face legal challenges that could ultimately land at the Supreme Court. The measure will not take effect until next year and includes a legal trigger that will automatically invalidate it if courts strike down its Texas underpinnings.
Sam Paredes, executive director of the Gun Owners of California, said California’s legal gambit was vague and unconstitutional, and he predicted it would soon be struck down legally.
“This is an absolute temper tantrum the governor is throwing because the Supreme Court chose not to impose a stay on the Texas law,” he said.
Mr. Paredes said a coalition of gun rights groups and gun manufacturers had already begun work on a legal response to the California measure, which he said had a critical difference from the Texas abortion statute now that Roe v. Wade had been reversed by the Supreme Court.
“Unlike abortion,” he said, “the right to keep and bear arms is a constitutionally protected right.”
Gun rights groups also have argued from the start, however, that the California measure’s bounty scheme could — and would — restrict the Second Amendment, and the American Civil Liberties Union has raised concerns about the potential implications for all constitutional protections.
“The problem with this bill is the same problem as the Texas anti-abortion law it mimics: It creates an end run around the essential function of the courts to ensure that constitutional rights are protected,” the A.C.L.U. said in a letter opposing California’s legislation. The group also charged that the legislation would “escalate an ‘arms race’” in creative legal attacks on politically sensitive issues including contraception, gender-affirming care and voting rights.
A recent National Rifle Association legislative update said that on this and several other gun bills, they were “looking at all available options including litigation.”
In the meantime, Mr. Hertzberg said, Democrats will use all available tools.
“I don’t agree with the Supreme Court,” he said, “but if Texas is going to use this legal framework to harm women, then California is going to use it to save lives by taking illegal guns off the streets.”