The article inaccurately conflates the word "bullet" with "ammunition." Sales of bullets are not restricted and there are no plans to restrict their sale. It is loaded ammunition that has been or will be restricted.
If the supermajority is the liberal free-for-all such conjecture suggests, it will have one fatal flaw: an inability to control spending. The article suggests the incoming governor will bear more of the blame in the people's perception for mismanaging an unrestrained government, but it doesn't seem likely the taxpayers are going to be content with that. With the recent Fed rate hike and additional forecasted hikes, the market is already responding to the end of "free money." The days of fiscally liberal California politicians are numbered, and as the article states, the current governor perceives the incoming supermajority is already comprised of more conservative members. That doesn't mean that what is "vice" in the eyes of liberals, including cigarettes, vaping, gasoline and guns among other things won't be targeted for increased tax revenue, but the same people that want to tax guns, also want to raise taxes on things more Californians spend on. There has to be a limited tolerance for "tax and spend" even among those opposed to gun rights.
I see the incoming democratic supermajority in California, and the unprecedented all-blue Nevada legislature and governor's mansion as their own worst enemy. What would be more concerning for gun-rights would be politicians that want lower taxes and less guns.
