Given that the SIG P365 XMACRO that was given to Newsom is an on-roster model, it’s not that hard to get it back into California. 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.
But he and his flunkies were probably too intimidated by their own gun laws to figure it out. For the low, low, price of a $10,000 donation to the Second Amendment Foundation, I’d be glad to help Newsom’s team figure this out.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Eduction for the Second Amendment Foundation. This post was adapted by SNW from a tweet he posted at X.
After the podcast was over Newsom gave the gun back. 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. So Newsom got denied gun posession by Newsom.
Those same lawyers would defend CAs laws in court arguing they are not infringements but common sense protections.
“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“
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.”
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 and research and reading without confirmation bias means MIner49er.
California originally had a three day waiting period. I believe starting in the 1950s. But it was extended to 10 days by the California state senate President and proud h0. Mo sezu@l Tom Ammiano. He was wildly supported by the @the ist and g. Ay. communities. And alot of gun owners too.
California has had a waiting period for handgun sales since at least 1923, it was one day when this bill passed in 1923. Then in 1955 it was increased to 3 days. in 1965 it was increased to five days. In 1975 it was increased to 15 days. Now its 10 days.
The bill that invoked the California one day waiting period in 1923 also made it illegal for gun sellers to advertise the sale of handguns on their property. However this law was declared unconstitutional in September 2018.
When the correlations are looked at in detail for changes in California waiting periods we find that California overall murder/suicide rate actually increased (they simply used different weapons/means), just like it did in every state over time with a waiting period.
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.
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.
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’.
Guess Newsom knows how it feels to screw himself!
Legacy Media Finally Acknowledges Politization of Public Health.
“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/
So, who believed his story of how He, the wife and the kids all went to the gun range on Mother’s Day and had a fine ol’ time?
It should be noted that the only reason this particular model is available in California AT ALL, is because the Microstamping part of the CA Roster Law was overturned due to a court challenge (which may still be under appeal?). Otherwise, any new pistol model (like this one) offered for sale since 2013 (?; maybe earlier) would not allowed to be tested and added to the list. I believe this part of the law is the only reason Glock still makes and sells the Gen3 Glocks; because the Gen4 and Gen5 models could not be offered for sale in CA, where the older Gen3 pistols had been approved prior to the passage of the Microstamping law, so they were grandfathered in and could be renewed over and over again without running afoul of that aspect of the law.