Lt. Governor Newsom responds to newest NRA lawsuit challenging Prop 63


(SACRAMENTO) - California Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom, a co-author of Proposition 63, issued the following statement after the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its California affiliate filed a lawsuit challenging a key component of Proposition 63, a ballot initiative strongly approved by voters in November 2016:

"We wrote Proposition 63 on solid legal ground and principle: If you're a felon banned from possessing guns in California, then you should not be able to purchase the ammunition that makes a firearm deadly. California voters said loudly and clearly that guns and ammunition do not belong in the hands of dangerous individuals - but once again, the NRA has prioritized gun industry profits over the lives of law-abiding Californians. We will fight the NRA every step of the way."


Proposition 63 requires ammunition sales and transfers to be conducted through a licensed vendor in a face-to-face transaction. This prevents persons who are lawfully prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition from circumventing the state's background checks system through anonymous online purchases. The lawsuit challenges this important function of California's incoming criminal background check system for ammunition purchases. Additional information on implementation dates for Proposition 63 can be found here.

The 24-year old found guilty of murdering a dozen people and injuring seventy others inside a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado was able to amass around 6,000 rounds of ammunition over the Internet, in the absence of any laws regulating ammunition sales.

The lawsuit is the latest NRA challenge to Proposition 63, which was co-authored by Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (now the Giffords Law Center), and overwhelmingly approved by California voters in November 2016. In June, two federal judges in separate District Courts considered request to delay implementation of Proposition 63's large capacity magazine provisions, which were scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2017. The two judges reached opposite conclusions despite previous similar efforts to overturn large capacity magazine bans, which were roundly rejected by federal appellate courts across the US, and the Ninth Circuit.