In his latest attempt to disguise his immeasurable leftism, California Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom insisted that he was “not anti-gun at all” after being given a gun by former Navy SEAL Shawn Ryan on the veteran’s podcast. California Democrat governor Gavin Newsom insisted that he was “not anti-gun at all.”

Ryan handed Newsom a “California-compliant” Sig Sauer P365 X-Macro pistol, prompting Newsom to respond, “The last thing people would expect is that I respect this gift.”

“I’m not anti-gun at all,” Newsom protested. “I’m for just some gun-safe, common sense. I’m challenged by large capacity magazine clips in urban centers, weapons of war, sometimes outgunning the police, but otherwise, man, people have the right to bear arms, and I got no ideological opposition to that at all.”

Shawn Ryan gifts Gavin Newsom a California compliant SIG Sauer P365 X-Macro. @GavinNewsom@sigsauerinc pic.twitter.com/Cv5DJ1rsFt

— Shawn Ryan Show (@ShawnRyanShow) July 11, 2025

Let’s take a look at Newsom’s record on guns.

In June 2021, Newsom bashed a federal judge after the judge ruled that California’s assault weapons ban was “unconstitutional” and violated the Second Amendment.

“The fact that this judge compared the AR-15 – a weapon of war that’s used on the battlefield – to a Swiss Army Knife completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who’ve lost loved ones to this weapon,” Newsom claimed. “We’re not backing down from this fight, and we’ll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives.”

But the AR-15 is not a “weapon of war,” and it is not “used on the battlefield” by modern militaries. The AR-15 is the civilian version of the U.S. military’s M4 rifle. The M4 is able to fire in a fully automatic mode, while the AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle.

In December 2021, after the Supreme Court decided to leave a Texas anti-abortion law in place, Newsom responded by threatening gun sellers and manufacturers with fines of “at least $10,000,” posting on X, “SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?! If that’s the precedent then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets. If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.”

SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!

If that's the precedent then we'll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets.

If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives. https://t.co/N5Iur9PEUZ

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) December 12, 2021

In July 2022, Newsom signed a law permitting lawsuits to be filed against gun makers. The law, AB 1594, created a “firearm industry standard of conduct,” including the requirement to “[e]stablish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls” and “[t]ake reasonable precautions to ensure that the firearm industry member does not sell, distribute, or provide a firearm-related product to a downstream distributor or retailer of firearm-related products who fails to establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls.”

In June 2023, Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the Constitution that would ban “assault weapons,” implement universal background checks for gun purchases, raise the federal minimum age for buying a firearm from 18 to 21, and impose a mandatory “reasonable” waiting period for all gun purchases.

In September 2023, Newsom signed into law a bill that “specifically bans people from carrying guns in 26 places, including public parks and playgrounds, public demonstrations and gatherings, amusement parks, churches, banks, zoos and ‘any other privately owned commercial establishment that is open to the public’ unless the owner puts up a sign saying guns are allowed,” the AP noted.

He’s not anti-gun at all.

President Donald Trump said Thursday that he would not support any Republican who voted against defunding the parent company of NPR and PBS in an upcoming bill that would enshrine DOGE cuts into law. 

Trump urged Republicans in the Senate to back a $9.4 billion rescission package already passed by the House, which would include more than $1 billion in reductions for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the nonprofit that was created by Congress and is funded by the federal government but is not a governmental agency. The House passed the White House’s proposed package 214-212 last month, and the Senate is expected to vote next week. 

“It is very important that all Republicans adhere to my Recissions Bill and, in particular, DEFUND THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC BROADCASTING (PBS and NPR), which is worse than CNN & MSDNC put together,” Trump posted on Truth Social. “Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement. Thank you for your attention to this matter!”

The legislation would cut $8.3 billion in foreign spending, including funding for “Net Zero Cities” in Mexico, Iraqi “Sesame Street,” and global LGBTQ+ initiatives, as well as $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. In May, Trump signed an executive order directing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to stop funding NPR and PBS, saying the entities were deeply infected with leftwing bias. 

“The [Corporation for Public Broadcasting]’s governing statute reflects principles of impartiality: the CPB may not ‘contribute to or otherwise support any political party,’” the order says. “The CPB fails to abide by these principles to the extent it subsidizes NPR and PBS.  Which viewpoints NPR and PBS promote does not matter. What does matter is that neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events to taxpaying citizens.”

NPR and several smaller publicly funded networks have challenged the order in court, arguing that it contradicts previous funding allocations made by Congress and violates the First Amendment. The courts have yet to issue a ruling on the suit, but parts of the argument could become moot if the Senate votes to pull the previously authorized spending. 

Some Republicans, including Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have already voiced opposition to the proposed cuts. The Wall Street Journal reported that Senator Mike Rounds of South Dakota also indicated he was seeking an exemption for the funding of American Indian public radio stations.