Did Gavin Newsom Just Shoot Himself in the Foot with His Gun Laws?

Newsom’s gifted firearm sparks questions about compliance with California’s strict gun laws. Assemblyman Carl DeMaio asks for legal advice, to help a brother out.

⏰ 3 minute read, more if you read the letter, long if you watch the video

A Gift That Keeps on Giving Questions

Governor Gavin Newsom has built his reputation championing California’s strict gun control measures. So, when he accepted an Sig Sauer P365 X-Macro semi-automatic pistol as a gift from conservative podcaster Shawn Ryan on The Shawn Ryan Show, eyebrows went up across the political spectrum. The media spun this as evidence that Newsom is not really “anti-gun,” but Assemblyman Carl DeMaio sees it differently. In a pointed letter (posted below) to both U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and California Attorney General Rob Bonta, DeMaio raises serious questions about whether Newsom followed the laws he has pushed through Sacramento—laws he repeatedly calls “common sense” gun safety measures—or if he managed to sidestep them for what looks like political theater. DeMaio wants answers to basic questions: Did Newsom complete the required background check? Did he file all the necessary federal and state forms? Was the mandatory 10-day “cooling off” period observed? Does he even possess a California Firearms Safety Card? These are not trivial gotcha questions—they test whether Newsom’s policies make practical sense. If the governor cannot navigate these requirements, what does that tell us about how realistic they are for regular Californians?

Newsom’s Podcast Play: Pandering or Posturing?

Newsom’s decision to appear on a conservative podcast was hardly spontaneous. This fits a broader pattern where the governor, clearly with Presidential ambitions in mind, attempts to appeal to California’s progressive base and a wider audience beyond state lines. His four-hour conversation with Ryan covered everything from guns to trans athletes, with Newsom dropping hints about a possible 2028 presidential run while carefully distancing himself from Biden’s political baggage, but accepting a firearm on camera? That represents a remarkably bold move for someone who has built his entire political brand around restricting gun ownership. It looks like a calculated attempt to appear relatable to conservatives while counting on liberals to praise his “courage” for venturing into hostile territory.

The trouble is that Newsom’s performance comes across as trying to be everything to everyone. He regularly attacks the NRA and pushes for constitutional amendments to curb gun violence, yet he was pleased to smile for the cameras while accepting a brand-new pistol. This does not look like genuine conviction—it seems like political shapeshifting. When you are the primary architect of laws that place heavy burdens on law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights, accepting a gun as what appears to be a publicity stunt creates a strong impression of hypocrisy.

DeMaio’s Letter: A Stroke of Accountability Genius

This is where Carl DeMaio enters the picture, and his letter represents a brilliant combination of sharp wit and serious scrutiny. Rather than simply accusing Newsom of wrongdoing, DeMaio takes a surgical approach by asking the Attorney General to investigate whether Newsom complied with California’s labyrinthine gun laws. Did he pay the required 11% firearms tax? Was the weapon transported unloaded in a locked, hard-sided case as mandated? Is it now appropriately stored to prevent children from accessing it? These represent the exact hoops that California gun owners must jump through every day, and DeMaio’s letter uses Newsom’s policies to corner him potentially.

What makes the letter particularly effective is its tone. DeMaio does not simply call out a potential violation—he frames his inquiry as a public service, noting that “We wouldn’t want him to end up facing criminal prosecution.” This represents a biting reminder that Newsom’s laws, often pushed through with little consideration for their practical impact, supposedly apply to everyone equally—or at least they should. DeMaio’s letter goes beyond mere political attack; it represents a genuine call for fairness. If the governor expects ordinary Californians to navigate a complex regulatory maze to exercise their constitutional rights, he had better be prepared to do the same.

The Bigger Picture: Laws That Burden, Not Protect

DeMaio’s letter addresses something much larger than Newsom—it exposes fundamental problems with California’s entire gun law system. The state’s regulations, covering everything from background checks to waiting periods to storage requirements, rank among the nation’s most restrictive. Newsom regularly promotes these laws as necessary to prevent gun violence, even proposing a constitutional amendment to spread similar restrictions nationwide. Yet DeMaio’s questions reveal these laws are so complex and burdensome that even the governor himself might struggle to comply with them. If Newsom cannot easily navigate these requirements with all his resources and staff, how can we expect the average citizen to manage?

This is where DeMaio’s background as a pro-gun rights conservative becomes most apparent. California’s gun laws do not simply restrict—they create heavy burdens. They impose significant financial and bureaucratic costs on law-abiding citizens while doing remarkably little to address the root causes of violent crime. DeMaio’s letter exposes this fundamental disconnect, using Newsom’s actions and rhetoric to highlight how these supposedly “common sense” measures often feel like government overreach. It is a powerful reminder that the government should serve the people, not saddle them with red tape that even the governor might not follow.

So, Does It Matter?

Newsom’s gifted gun represents more than just a political stunt gone wrong—it opens a window into a much deeper issue about political accountability. When politicians champion laws they do not fully understand or follow themselves, it erodes public trust. Californians deserve a government that respects their constitutional rights, not one that uses them as props in what looks like a national campaign strategy. DeMaio’s letter serves as an essential wake-up call for Newsom and every lawmaker who prioritizes political symbolism over practical governance.

A Call for Clarity, Not Chaos

DeMaio’s letter works as a masterstroke because it does not simply criticize—it demands concrete answers. It challenges Newsom to prove he is not above the law he helped create. More broadly, it challenges all of us to demand better from our elected leaders. We need policies that respect our fundamental rights, not ones that turn law-abiding citizens into potential criminals simply for accepting a gift. We need a government that remains accountable to the people, not focusing primarily on posturing for the next election cycle.

So we should applaud Assemblyman DeMaio for his originality and political courage. He is not just holding Newsom’s feet to the fire—he is holding up a mirror to a system that often seems more concerned with control than genuine safety. And he is doing it with the kind of sharp wit that cuts through political noise, reminding us that the most effective way to expose hypocrisy is often to let it speak for itself. Well done Assemblyman, this letter, and aggressive actions like it, are what Republicans should be doing each and every day in the State Capitol. There are not enough GOP legislators to stop bad bills, but you cannot take away the First Amendment rights of the Republicans that are in the Senate and the Assembly.

---

Here is an image of the letter itself, and below that the video of Newsom accepting the gun on the Shawn Ryan show.