Even Mother Jones doesn’t like Gavin Newsom’s California ammo grab

MoJo, the left-leaning publication whose editors over the years have included Michael Moore, came out this week against Prop. 63, California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s “Safety for All” ballot referendum.

Funded by more than $5 million in contributions from Newsom’s left over campaign war chest, the state Democratic Party and billionaire philanthropists, Prop. 63 would usher in a host of modifications to California’s already confusing gun laws. One of these would be mandating background checks on ammunition sales.

MoJo, who has penned so many pieces on gun politics that they have their own often-updated section of articles on the subject, on Tuesday issued a guide to the 17 initiatives on the upcoming California ballot. They are in favor of a plastic bag ban, legalizing the cultivation and sale of marijuana, repealing the death penalty, a $9 billion bond for schools, and early parole for nonviolent offenders.

What they are against include a $2 cigarette tax, condoms in porn films, and (wait for it) Prop. 63.

From the piece by Kevin Drum:

For a long time there’s been a competition of sorts between Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and Senate leader Kevin de León over who can be the king of gun control. This summer, de León passed several gun control bills, including ones that (a) ban possession of large-capacity magazines and (b) require sellers of ammunition to make sure that buyers are not prohibited persons. Newsom’s Prop 63 was already on the ballot when the legislation passed, and it largely duplicates it with only a modest bit of tightening. Since I always prefer a legislative solution to an initiative, if possible, I think it’s best to let the new laws do their job. Prop 63 just doesn’t do enough to be worth an initiative at this point.

Sure, it’s a qualified “no” for reasons that don’t have anything to do with gun rights, but it is still a “no.”