Glocks are among the most popular handguns on the market today. Between civilian and police purchases, there are more Glocks in holsters than pretty much any other brand of handgun out there. They're affordable, reliable, and have tons of aftermarket support, if that's what you're into.
But, because a third party made a thing that will turn them full auto, people are blaming Glock. They were supposed to completely re-engineer their proven design because of something that's illegal to buy, sell, or own.
Enter California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Recently, on the Shawn Ryan Podcast, Newsom was given a handgun, which he accepted, and everyone said it was proof he was totally not anti-gun. He's been trying to show he's actually pretty moderate, what with his podcast appearances and even his own podcast efforts.
Well, now is his chance to shine.
California Democrats are attempting to ban the sale of new Glock handguns and similar off-brand guns, arguing that the bill targets the kind of guns used by criminals in violent crimes. These guns are among the most popular in the state of California, meaning that California Democrats are poised to ban a popular gun for law-abiding Californians and open the door for a future ban on all semiautomatic handguns.
...The bill has already passed the state Assembly and is on the way to being passed by the state Senate. That means Gavin Newsom will either have to sign the bill, showing that his recent posturing about not being “anti-gun at all” is all a fraudulent act, or veto it, violating California progressive orthodoxy and painting a political target on his back for the 2028 Democrats who want to pander to the gun control activists in the party’s base.
This is how Newsom has operated for the past year. He has postured himself as tough-on-crime while undermining tougher criminal penalties voted on by Californians. He has postured as a moderate on transgender issues while still forcing girls to change next to boys in locker rooms and blocking schools from telling parents about their children’s alternate transgender identities. Newsom wants to be seen as a sensible moderate while governing as a staunch progressive, and this gun ban will once again expose his contradictions, one way or another.
The Washington Examiner's Zachary Faria isn't buying Newsom's attempt at reframing himself, and I'm right there with him. There's just been too much over too long for me to buy that suddenly, he's really middle of the road and not someone who would push the Biden agenda.
That's especially true when it comes to guns.
You can't be moderate, then call a common-sense decision like the Ninth Circuit's overturning of the state's ammo control law a "slap in the face." That measure went too far, and everyone knows it.
Not that anyone was likely to buy that Newsom was a moderate when it came to guns.
The truth is that Governor Hair Gel has never met a gun control law he didn't like, unless it somehow made life difficult for his Hollywood buddies. That's the only line that cannot be crossed in California anti-gun politics. Again, everyone knows it.
But here, Newsom has a chance to at least fool some of the people. He can veto this particular ban, put an end to it once and for all, and maybe convince at least some Democrats that he's moderate enough to win in 2028. They tried to claim Vice President Kamala Harris was because she owned a Glock, and that didn't work because of her own history calling for gun bans, but this is a chance for Newsom.
I just don't think he's smart enough not to take it.
I mean, he wasn't smart enough to figure out how to exempt his buddy's company, Panera Bread, from the state's minimum wage law without making it really obvious what he was doing, so I doubt he'll think about a veto.
Then again, I suppose weirder things have happened.
