Before we get into the premise of this column—a sensible approach for California governor Gavin Newsom if he wants to make it his mission to convince a divided Congress to pursue further federal gun control policies— two points of clarity.
First, this is not a discussion about the merits of gun ownership and the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I’m not a constitutional scholar and therefore am not qualified to discuss the absoluteness of the Second Amendment (for what it’s worth, I’m also not a gun owner).
Nor is this column going to pass judgment on Newsom’s anger-laced rhetoric late last week after two mass shootings (a third would soon take place) less than two days apart in his home state.
For argument’s sake, let’s assume the governor is genuinely pained by the twin tragedies in the Golden State and not engaging in the sort of performative politics that are more about impressing fellow progressives (and raising one’s standing as a presidential candidate-in-waiting) than affecting change.
Instead, let’s discuss what role Newsom could play—and what lessons history has to offer—if his goal is to see a federal assault weapons ban emerge from the current session of Congress.
Indeed, such a measure is there for the taking if the Democratic-controlled Senate and the Republican-led House (both with the slimmest of majorities) can get past their respective partisan and philosophical differences. California senator Dianne Feinstein’s assault weapons bill, introduced last week, would ban the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of military-style assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and other high-capacity ammunition feeding devices. And her Age 21 measure would raise the minimum wage for purchasing assault weapons from 18 to 21—not coincidentally, the same requirement for purchasing handguns.
But the existence of said measures is hardly a guarantor of successor. Feinstein did manage to get an assault weapons ban through a Democratic-controlled Congress in 1994 (it expired a decade later). In 2013, Feinstein again tried to roll the same boulder up Capitol Hill. This time, her assault weapons ban failed.
So how does this apply to a California governor who isn’t a voting member of Congress? Simple: Newsom can have a say in the matter as both the chief executive of the nation’s largest state (currently the epicenter of the latest round of mass shootings). And, as we saw last year, he’s effective at drawing national media attention.
But to be an asset and not a liability in this debate, Newsom will have to employ political skills he hasn’t much displayed as California’s 40th governor—working quietly and deliberately behind the scenes, extending olive branches across the aisles, and willing to be more of a pragmatist than a dreamer.
Under the guise of unsolicited advice, here are few suggestions for Newsom if he wants to wade into Capitol Hill’s business.
Step One: Learn from History. “History,” in this case, being Feinstein’s highs and lows in pushing for assault weapons bans.
Why did a ban see the light of day in 1994? Two reasons.
First, in a year in which crime was a paramount concern (nearly 72% of California voters approved the Golden State’s “Three Strikes” law for repeat felons in that summer’s California June primary), Feinstein and her allies channeled their inner Vito Corleones and made reluctant House and Senate members “an offer they couldn’t refuse.”
Translation: the assault weapons ban was part of a far more sweeping measure —1994’s Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act— that then president Bill Clinton signed into law less than two months before Election Day. Among its provisions: 100,000 new police officers, $9.7 billion for prisons, $6.1 billion for prevention programs, plus the creation of a federal Office on Violence against Women.
What also helped in 1994: Bill Clinton’s political smarts. He refused to make the assault weapon ban a standalone vote. And, befitting a “triangulator” fond of political bank shots, he made something of a political Faustian bargain knowing that the ban, in addition to expiring to 2004, also contained loopholes (it applied only to specified types of weapons and large-capacity magazines that were created after the bill became law).
By contrast, another Feinstein-crafted ban didn’t pan out in 2013 despite public outrage over recent mass shootings in Arizona, Colorado, and Connecticut.
Why?
Then Senate majority leader Harry Reid did the opposite of the earlier Congress and kept Feinstein’s ban out of a broader gun-control bill. Reid did so out of fear that an assault weapons provision would sink the comprehensive measure. But by doing so, he doomed Feinstein’s proposal to failure. Despite her pleas on the Senate floor—Feinstein at one point dared her colleagues to “show some guts”—the ban failed on a 60–40 vote (15 Senate Democrats, many of them looking at uphill races the following year in red states that they ultimately would lose, voted against the assault weapon ban).
The lesson here for Newsom: if he wants to join Feinstein in championing this latest assault weapons ban proposal, he should start thinking about sweeteners. California’s governor might want to examine last year’s successful gun-control measure in Congress, in particular $15 billion in federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades (California first partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom last week took part in National Governors Association meeting that focused on youth mental health).
Step Two: Style and Leverage. While Feinstein, a decade ago, did call out her colleagues for their unwillingness to cast what might be an unpopular vote back home, she otherwise isn’t much of a scold.
Newsom, on the other hand, is a scold—be it regarding crime, curricula, fossil fuels, or pretty much any other social issue that, in his opinion, casts red states and the Republicans who run them in a negative light.
That approach did wonders for Newsom’s national standing in 2022 as Democrats agonized over whether President Biden had the vim and vigor to “fight the good fight” in 2024 (give political reporters an inch to talk about the next election and they’ll take a mile).
However, a war of words isn’t a smart way to win over otherwise persuadable congressional Republicans, especially after Newsom took fellow Californian and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to task for his lack of public reaction to the Golden State’s shootings.
What Newsom should consider: outside leverage.
Here, the governor should revisit 1994’s debate, when three former presidents (Democrat Jimmy Carter and Republicans Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan) co-signed a letter urging Congress to pass an assault weapons ban.
Not that Newsom would do the job of Democratic senators (presumably, Feinstein or Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer would do the asking), but imagine if California’s governor approached the current living former presidents to do the same in 2023 as three decades ago. While Carter and Barack Obama presumably would consent, George W. Bush is a mystery (you’ll notice his father didn’t sign the 1994 letter).
And Donald Trump? As with most things surrounding the America’s 45th president, it’s complicated—beginning with Trump’s vacillation on the topic. A better question? Why Trump would bother to take Newsom’s call given the two’s quarrelsome past (again, a benefit for Newsom’s national standing with progressives after such media stunts as the governor’s joining Trump’s Truth Social platform).
The takeaway: should he choose to be a player in the federal gun debate, Newsom will want to tone down the heated rhetoric, as in the end, at least five House Republicans will have to break ranks for an assault ban to emerge from the lower chamber.
Which takes us to a final consideration for Newsom.
Step Three: Rexamine Your Job Approach. I worked for a former California governor who patrolled the halls of Congress, sometimes successfully and sometimes in vain, looking for cooperation from the federal government (Pete Wilson served eight years in the US Senate before winning 1990’s governor’s race in California).
The topics varied—border control, welfare reform, post–Cold War base closures— but Wilson’s approach didn’t. He’s traveled to Washington and would do a couple of days of meetings sprinkled with press “avails.”
Newsom’s presence in Washington as he begins his second term as California’s 40th governor? There was last July’s visit to the nation’s capital to pick up an education award, during which event California’s governor showcased his commitment to abortion and climate. But presidential speculation overshadowed that trip (walking into the West Wing will do that). In 2023, Newsom may want to consider more quality time on Capitol Hill proper— readjusting the blend to include more private meetings and less time in front of the cameras.
Similarly, Newsom may want to reconsider his role within the National Governors Association. There’s nothing stopping the governor of America’s most populous state from trying to develop a gun control agenda with his fellow chief executives and then presenting it to Congress. Just as there’s nothing stopping Newsom from trying to forge an immigration solution with his fellow “border state” governors.
But given the constant potshots at red states, a bipartisan solution that entails a buy-in from Republicans might require . . . well, a more cordial California governor.
Gavin Newsom intermingling politely with his Republicans peers? That wouldn’t be politics as usual in America.
Then again, it will take something out of the ordinary to get a divided Congress to buy into an assault weapons ban.
