 Gavin Newsom. And just today, he announced that he wants to push forward a 28th amendment that will kind of enact some quote unquote common sense gun regulations across the land. And I did pull a clip from his his announcement of that that I was curious to get your reaction to and then we can speak a little bit more about California after that. But first let's hear from Gavin Newsom. Every time it's the same. They tell us we can't stop these massacres. They tell us we have to stand by and watch tragedy after tragedy unfold in our communities. They say we can't stop domestic terrorism without violating the Second Amendment. And the thoughts and prayers are the best we can do. I'm here to say that's a lie. So today I'm proposing the 28th amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. It raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. It mandates universal background checks and institutes reasonable waiting periods for all gun purchases. And it bans civilians from buying assault rifles. Those weapons of war are founding fathers never foresaw. This will guarantee states as well the ability to enact common sense gun safety laws while leaving the Second Amendment intact and respecting America's gun owning tradition. For the last two years I've seen Newsom in particular do this weird rebranding of I don't know the so-called positive liberties as the real definition of freedom or something. So I don't know if you guys recall his little campaign but he's like well actually freedom in California means the right to have an abortion paid for and the right to be free of gun violence. And you know it's part of this like I don't know I think he imagines it as like it's California competing against Florida and persuasive redefinitions of what like American liberty actually means. And maybe that's sophisticated but I don't really get the angle other than it's just a convenient way for people to embrace the pink police state or something. And of course we all know what his 28th amendment thing here means. It's just a clever way of saying liberals will always like to pretend to be originalists or constitutionalists when they grab your guns. You know it's pretty vulgar to me that's my initial reaction. Yeah I wonder about and I just thought I'm always wondering you know because you're you're playing you're constantly playing this game where you're trying to stay a step ahead of what they're going to do next. And at the moment it appears you are a step ahead because they're still fighting over these 80% receivers and you've created the 0% receiver. So that conversation seems to be in different stages right now. But one thing that California seems to be trying to do to get after this problem is to use liability laws to hold either gun manufacturers or gun sellers liable for any shootings that happen with the guns. And one example here just earlier this week LAPD found 700 ghost guns now it's getting five million dollars. Basically they recovered ghost guns that were used in the ambush of some LA County Sheriff's deputies in Compton in a home invasion and a triple murder. And they settled with Polymer 80 which is a competing ghost gun kit seller for five million dollars. So the seeing stories like this worry you that kind of that that's ultimately going to be the fate of defense distributed that people are going to use ghost guns to commit crimes and then they're going to somehow try to come after you and hold you liable if it could be traced back to it was created on a ghost gunner. Well fortunately or not this is already our reality it's not like this hasn't happened yet. Polymer 80 is taking most of these hits these days and I agree with you on the general approach both of gun control and like state and municipal authorities they imagine a better like big tobacco like approach where okay the big the biggest suppliers let's say Smith and West and the actual gun suppliers they at least have the pro forma protection of what's called the placa and if you guys know about the placa but you know protection of lawful commerce and arms acts something like that so okay well they can't you know they're still trying to pierce it right because you'll remember the big Remington settlement after Sandy Hook and that that itself was was a pretty sad thing because like the insurers decided to settle they didn't decide to press the issue on the placa or the two-way and so I have seen consortium so you know like legal meets where these gun controllers get together and say all right our new strategy is placa we can at least beat them all up in court and get the insurance carriers to settle so much that it forces you know as good capitalists that forces them to make a safer product a label of differently they'll put you know your orange tips and safety features on the guns and things so that's in earnest their approach and of course it gives them this pro-social whatever this kind of progressive feeling about it while it also masks I guess the it's pure ideology but it also masks how well they're actually engaging in gun control by capitalism now rather than like strictly as a kind of ideological approach but back to your point I've been in California alone I've also been sued I was sued in the Tahama ghost gun shooting and a number of ghost gun companies were sued including Black Hawk we were sued for 500 million I think half a billion dollars you know yeah you get concerned when you're sued for half a billion dollars anytime someone has it uses a ghost gun so to the point in the article that you just previewed well the accusation that they don't do background checks this is a this is a problem right there again they're trying to redefine the duty of care of a ghost gun company that company's not selling guns that company can't use the next system even if it wanted to and so a little bit you know this is all workshopped for pr this is all kind of part of a broader campaign of pushing people in this direction to make expectations have expectations like the big tobacco fight this is my read about it but to your point will will this be the future of yes of course as as these kit guns are used and crimes and things yes I think we'll be hauled into every single court we're often threatened with it there was a big New York suit very recently that brought a bunch of suppliers in I think we weren't brought in because at this point we have a reputation for being very litigious like they don't always want to just litigate with us so they kind of pick lower-hanging fruit maybe or softer targets but you know like I've gotten plenty of behind the scenes private letters from leticia james pick your favorite AG you know like they're always threatening to do and that will be the future that's a chunk of metal that you have you know at what point does that become a gun and does it stop being you know merely a block of metal these these are the most interesting questions and to use your analogy like the drug or scheduling analogy like that's I saw California now other states are beginning to use a war on drugs vocabulary to regulate gun components and this is so much fun they say precursor parts right precursor parts to fire yeah already the connotation is already there that like there's something wrong that you would have components that might go into a gun or fit into a gun and there's something implied about the scheduling of these components outside of their quality of you know being I don't know they have their own legal requirement for regulation and I watched California deal with this question since 2019 each year they were just about to create a new regime for precursor parts and they even had one at one point but they used COVID to kind of skip ahead and just accomplish what they wanted anyway uh you know no spoilers here you're not allowed to have them but they they ended up merging precursor parts with the new enthusiasm for banning unfinished receivers because the states the several liberal blue states ended up mostly just copying language from lights ghost gun rule which we've already discussed here saying well whatever's regulated by the atf it's regulated here too a funny consequence of that is in california for example right now california law is really specific to the federal rules so it says only those things that are fairly regulated can be sold in california well because of van der sok and the future summary judgment that's got to knock out biden's rule california will be in this opera position where their their law means nothing can be sold in california because nothing's federally regulated anymore is there um is there any room for federalism in gun laws uh you know for you uh so you know does california have the right or los angeles sire san francisco do they have the right to have different gun laws than uh you know uh dalis texas austin huntsville texas uh where i spent two years uh you know i mean is is there a is there room for that or are these kind of universal rights which must be universally respected in all contexts that's an awesome question uh i think in practical terms in practical political terms we have to make concessions like obviously san francisco is always going to be hostile in a way that you know view texas is not yeah what i don't like or at least what i can't accept is the fact that new sum and there's this new these progressive nostrums mean we have to empower our state or local authorities to reach outside of our state jurisdiction county jurisdiction municipal boards and go attack companies uh and people in other states and other jurisdictions so unfortunately though i would like to make practical federal federalist concessions in theory right because i want to be a good american in practice these are almost impossible to concede now because there are something something like civil war conditions in the courts and this is not an exaggeration i spent most of last year fighting california because california passed ab 1621 and 17 well i forget the other ones that they had but in combination they meant you know if you're selling something in texas like a ghost gun kit we'll just empower any of our private citizens or gun control groups to sue you anyway uh to just go just go into you so unfortunately um i think we're we're kind of in a post federalist conversation and um it would be deadly to just say well i'm a good constitutional so please everyone in california please come sue me that was an excerpt from our live stream with kody wilson if you want to see the full conversation go here if you want to see another excerpt go here and come back next thursday at one p.m eastern time when zack weismiller and i will be talking to somebody very interesting on the reason live stream