Gavin Newsom gifted a gun on podcat

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That was definitely an illegal transfer under California law. A variety of laws, actually, some having nothing to do with guns. But specifically, an illegal firearm transfer, by Newsome, who received a handgun without the 15 day waiting period, the state background check, and having the transfer done through a federally licensed FFL dealer, where a NICS check could be done.


Newsome committed several state felonies, on camera, by accepting that gun.

No, he just handled a weapon. He didn't take ownership.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Speaking of laws, is Adam Schiff going to jail for mortgage fraud??

Trump goes first!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

You shouldn’t be allowed to own any gun. AR15 or otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was definitely an illegal transfer under California law. A variety of laws, actually, some having nothing to do with guns. But specifically, an illegal firearm transfer, by Newsome, who received a handgun without the 15 day waiting period, the state background check, and having the transfer done through a federally licensed FFL dealer, where a NICS check could be done.


Newsome committed several state felonies, on camera, by accepting that gun.

No, he just handled a weapon. He didn't take ownership.

In California that constitutes an illegal transfer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was definitely an illegal transfer under California law. A variety of laws, actually, some having nothing to do with guns. But specifically, an illegal firearm transfer, by Newsome, who received a handgun without the 15 day waiting period, the state background check, and having the transfer done through a federally licensed FFL dealer, where a NICS check could be done.


Newsome committed several state felonies, on camera, by accepting that gun.

No, he just handled a weapon. He didn't take ownership.

In California that constitutes an illegal transfer.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was definitely an illegal transfer under California law. A variety of laws, actually, some having nothing to do with guns. But specifically, an illegal firearm transfer, by Newsome, who received a handgun without the 15 day waiting period, the state background check, and having the transfer done through a federally licensed FFL dealer, where a NICS check could be done.


Newsome committed several state felonies, on camera, by accepting that gun.

No, he just handled a weapon. He didn't take ownership.

In California that constitutes an illegal transfer.

+1

-1 No, it's not automatically an "illegal transfer" under California law for someone to be handed a gun to look at. It's frankly kind of funny how the supposed party of guns doesn't actually even know what the gun laws are, nor do they have any clue about Democrats who are gun owners.

[Anonymous]

Woke up this mornin'
Got yourself a gun
Your mama always said you'd be the Chosen One
She said, "You're one in a million
You got to burn to shine"
But you were born under a bad sign
With a blue moon in your eyes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Right wing podcaster Shawn Ryan gave Gavin Newsom a pistol during a recent episode and Newsom gladly accepted it. Isn’t that illegal?

What would be illegal about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was definitely an illegal transfer under California law. A variety of laws, actually, some having nothing to do with guns. But specifically, an illegal firearm transfer, by Newsome, who received a handgun without the 15 day waiting period, the state background check, and having the transfer done through a federally licensed FFL dealer, where a NICS check could be done.


Newsome committed several state felonies, on camera, by accepting that gun.

No, he just handled a weapon. He didn't take ownership.

In California that constitutes an illegal transfer.

+1

-1 No, it's not automatically an "illegal transfer" under California law for someone to be handed a gun to look at. It's frankly kind of funny how the supposed party of guns doesn't actually even know what the gun laws are, nor do they have any clue about Democrats who are gun owners.

Didn't Trump handle a gun after his felony conviction? I don't exactly recall but in case of a felony you don't get to be anywhere near them or touch them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That was definitely an illegal transfer under California law. A variety of laws, actually, some having nothing to do with guns. But specifically, an illegal firearm transfer, by Newsome, who received a handgun without the 15 day waiting period, the state background check, and having the transfer done through a federally licensed FFL dealer, where a NICS check could be done.


Newsome committed several state felonies, on camera, by accepting that gun.

No, he just handled a weapon. He didn't take ownership.

In California that constitutes an illegal transfer.

Please provide the statute.

[Anonymous]

Not a crime to receive a transfer.

Not a crime for someone make an occasional transfer (less than 6txns, 50firearms) per year.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-6/title-1/division-2/section-16730/


https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-6/title-4/division-6/chapter-1/article-1/section-26520/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not a crime to receive a transfer.

Not a crime for someone make an occasional transfer (less than 6txns, 50firearms) per year.

https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-6/title-1/division-2/section-16730/


https://law.justia.com/codes/california/code-pen/part-6/title-4/division-6/chapter-1/article-1/section-26520/

That’s for a legal transfer. Through an FFL, where a federal 4473 form is filled out, with a NICS check, plus any state paperwork, and the state waiting period - to a transferee who has the California gun purchaser license/card, which is similar to Maryland’s handgun purchase card.

If ALL those conditions are met, THEN it is a legal transfer.


If someone says “hey, here’s a gift gun for you” and you put your hand out and accept it, then THAT is an illegal transfer according to the letter of the law, because you took possession of it, with prior knowledge that it was being provided specifically to you. This is not the same as handling a gun in a store or a rental gun at a shooting range or using a friends gun at a shooting range. In those cases, there is no implied implication that you are receiving that specific gun to take possession of. Newsome was informed this gun was just for him, and he took possession of it without lawful process.



Of course he won’t be charged for this, but that’s not exactly a surprise either.


But he definitely violated CA law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

Well, except for to all of the rules that actually do apply to firearms.

We could just add high capacity magazines, or semi autos altogether, to the class III list, or create a separate class. There are a lot of perfectly legal ways that don’t violate the constitution to provide safe and sane access to firearms. I guess that we will have to wait until 2028, but the new democratic president is going to have SO MUCH new power, all due to trumps executive efforts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why the right doesn't think the left has guns or likes guns?

I'm a gun loving liberal. I just also think we should have gun laws & regulations. Like the fact that civilians don't need AR-style weapons.

Happily, the civil rights of Americans are not limited to “needs,” especially as determined by third parties who think the external appearance of a firearm has anything to do with its usefulness or can somehow make it a “weapon of war.”

Well, except for to all of the rules that actually do apply to firearms.

We could just add high capacity magazines, or semi autos altogether, to the class III list, or create a separate class. There are a lot of perfectly legal ways that don’t violate the constitution to provide safe and sane access to firearms. I guess that we will have to wait until 2028, but the new democratic president is going to have SO MUCH new power, all due to trumps executive efforts.

The Constitution is an incoherent mess from a time when people wrote with quill pens and spent a whole day to express half a thought.
It says whatever the people in power of the day say it says.