California’s Latest Gun Control Bills Would Outlaw Gun Raffles and Give-Aways

Previous Post
Next Post

State Sen. Anthony Portantino, a Burbank Democrat who wrote the bill and several of California’s signature gun control laws, said SB 368 would “put responsibility on these businesses to be better stewards of public health if they’re going to be selling something that potentially is detrimental to public health.”

“We don’t need games of chance to attract new people into the gun world,” Portantino said. “If it’s detrimental to public heath, should we really be giving freebies?”

Linda Bessin, founder of the political action committee Blue Values Burbank who has lobbied against the opening of new gun stores in the area, said banning promotional events would increase public safety and ensure California’s gun laws are closely followed. …

Portantino’s proposal adds to a bundle of bills Democrats have announced in recent weeks to combat gun violence, after a wave of mass shootings in the state killed dozens.

One measure, also by Portantino, would limit who can get a concealed-carry weapon permit in California, while others would ban the sale of body armor often worn by mass shooters, establish an excise tax on ammunition and guns, and require owners to get gun liability insurance.

Their efforts are more than certain to prompt lawsuits by gun rights groups and 2nd Amendment advocates who’ve already warned lawmakers against passing new limitations on access to firearms. Republican lawmakers have argued that California’s strong gun control laws have still failed to prevent mass shootings and other incidents of gun violence, and that the state should instead focus its attention on illegal firearm ownership.

“Once again, Democrats are focused on the wrong problem. The local gun shop throwing in a free box of bird shot when you buy a shotgun isn’t what’s driving California’s crime wave,” said Assemblymember Tom Lackey, a Palmdale Republican and former California Highway Patrol officer. “If we want to get serious about gun crime, we have to get serious about gun criminals.”

— Hannah Wiley in California Bill Would Ban Game-Style Events Like Lotteries and Raffles at Gun Stores

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. “If it’s detrimental to public heath, should we really be giving freebies?”

    Free cars are given away in California by dealerships and contests and raffles. Those too are detrimental to public heath (according to the CDC) to the tune of over 2,000,000 people annually who are (collectively) killed or seriously injured in car accidents including the over 90,000 kids under the age of 12 that are subjected to the car being detrimental to public heath – and operating a car in ‘public spaces’ is not even a constitutional right.

    • It’s democRat do gooder Smiley Face Gun Control on the march…Destinations same as the old Destinations: Slave shacks, whips, cotton fields, lynch mobs, concentration camps, starvation, gas chambers, etc.

  2. How exactly is gun ownership a public health problem? Most gun laws in the country, more murders than any where else. Wake up and smell the coffee, we are in the middle of a coup.

    • Its not a “public health problem”. They are trying to frame it as a “public health problem” and the reason is there are ‘health focused’ laws that can be bought into use as well as the CDC to take action under which ’causes of public health problems’ can be suppressed, confiscated, banned, etc… as basically ‘community care taking’.

      Biden tried this early in his presidency. He had the DOJ intercede in the SCOTUS case Caniglia v. Strom that involved the ‘community care taking’ exception under the 4th amendment. At the time Biden was touting a ‘national health emergency’ in relation to guns and under the ‘community care taking’ exception under the 4th, if SCOTUS agreed that it was applicable in that case for Caniglia then Biden could have invoked that under health laws to start confiscating firearms by use of the CDC enacting its powers under the law. SCOTUS though didn’t agree that the 4th amendment should be allowed to be violated for Caniglia in his case and although it wasn’t about what Biden would have done with it the win for Caniglia did squelch the ability for Biden to use the ‘community care taking’ exception as a means to mobilize health laws to confiscate firearms.

  3. Laws that tell us what we can and cannot do need to be based on some kind of demonstrable need or purpose. Not on some tyrannical whim. Where is the evidence that gun raffles or gun giveaways have ever contributed to increased crime?

    • There isn’t any. The most recent mass shooters didn’t wear body armor, and CCW holders have been involved in fewer than 10 firearms related gun crimes in the last 15 years. Nonetheless, in response to Bruen, Portantino wants to double the training requirement (at double the cost of course), and as in NY and NJ, eliminate most places where firearms can lawfully be carried. (As it is, the cost of obtaining a 2-yr CCW for a first time applicant is between $350 and $500, about half that for renewals.) Insurance does not cover, by public policy and statute, intentionally inflicted harms, so coverage for gang shootings and mass shootings is and will continue to be nonexistent. It is just another fee for gun owners to pay, which many already will have paid, since homeowners and renters policies already cover harms by negligent discharges.There are already excise taxes on ammo; the sole purpose of the bill is to make the cost of ammo prohibitive. As it is, the state mandates a “mini-background check” to make sure you are not in the database of prohibited persons and a fee of $1 for every ammo purchase (unless you are also buying a gun at the same time).

      • At no time in early American history has a ‘background check’ ever been required to purchase ammunition, or even guns for that matter.

        Time to launch lawsuit after lawsuit…

  4. The intent is to outlaw and confiscate all guns because there are still people in California that don’t agree with the liberals, nothing less!

    • California gun owners, what’s left of them, mostly ignore the California gun laws. They’ve flat given up on government representing them at all.

      This is actually for the democrats. They propose easy pass gun laws that will get their names in the news so they can run for higher office.

      • Plus these laws fecundate, er, generate big bucks for the entire legal industrial complex from civil to criminal to enforcement to incarceration, to hardware and software, ect.

        The whole thing makes Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 world view look extremely simplistic.

  5. “something that potentially is detrimental to public health” – demtards in general, pot, illegal alien invaders, burning battery cars, industrial windmills, meatless “vegan” starvation plans. (most everything the progs “believe” in)

  6. Will it pass? Yes.

    Will it do anything it proposes to do? No.

    Will this lead to an idiot in Sacramento demanding “we just need do more!”? Absolutely

    • Heh. See above.

      Reminds me of a cult in the 60s where they would sit in a circle and chant, “money, money, money” for hours… 😀

    • Bingo! What’s different is that another “assault weapon” that they have not been able to ban yet will be sold in California, and that is OF COURSE inimical to the public health.

  7. The silver lining is that Portantino’s CCW bill will likely be as “successful” as the nearly identical bills in NY and NJ. Recently, Newsom essentially admitted that he anticipates that the federal trial court judge in San Diego will, as he did previously, find that the “assault weapons” ban and the large capacity magazine bans are unconstitutional. (Appeals to the Ninth Circus to follow.)

    • “Recently, Newsom essentially admitted that he anticipates that the federal trial court judge in San Diego will, as he did previously, find that the “assault weapons” ban and the large capacity magazine bans are unconstitutional.”

      He admits knowing he violated someone’s civil rights? What’s the penalty for a deprivation of civil rights lawsuit?

  8. California’s disingenuous gun control talking point of “saving lives” is pathetically old and painfully transparent. It’s astonishing citizens continue to elect liars like Gavin Newsom into office.

    Gun deaths isn’t even in the top ten of top killers in California. Heart disease is at the top.

    Here’s are some interesting facts that leads me to call California’s anti-gun crusade disingenuous.
    Just SMOKING kills 40,000 each year in California. The Annual health care costs in California directly caused by smoking is $15.44 billion! Costs to Medicaid from smoking, $3.85 billion.

    In 2019, gun deaths in California were 2,945 of which 54% were suicides.

    • Big tobacco has REALLY deep pockets.

      How do you think they’ve managed to keep their products from being classified as neither food or drug for nearly a century?

      • Never good for you, was tobacco, BUT! – lung cancer was quite rare prior to the inclusion of stuff like lead arsenate, methyl bromide, ddt, and copper arsenate (ad infinitum), into the production process.

  9. It’s (past?) time to start fighting back with super pro-gun proposals that counter these ridiculous unconstitutional gun grabs. Here are a few suggestions: Eliminate sales tax on ALL firearms & ammo sales. Mandate gun safety classes in ALL public schools, beginning in elementary school, & continuing every year thru graduation. Fund & publicize shooting competitions. Make EVERY state Constitutional carry, open OR concealed. Have MORE firearm raffles & giveaways. Support your LGS.
    Leftists are patient & will take every incremental 2A encroachment they can get, and they will persist in getting more, and more, and more . . . until it’s decimated. We must fight back!

  10. certainly seems like the anti-gunners are all-in on promoting lawsuits…is this a planned strategy to deplete the coffers?

    • Frank,
      It is called “law fare”, the intent is to continually tie up companies time and finances until they finally give up.
      Doesn’t have to be legal but you have to fight the charge in court. $$$$$


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here