Golden State Democrats this week have erased any doubt they are determined to destroy the Second Amendment by throwing their support to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed gun control amendment to the Constitution, according to published reports.
The Sacramento Bee is reporting Democrats “are backing a campaign by Gov. Gavin Newsom to amend the United States Constitution with gun ownership age limits, universal background checks and an assault weapons ban.”
A joint resolution was introduced earlier in the week by Sen. Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) and Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) supporting Newsom’s proposed amendment, the newspaper said.
AmmoLand News first reported Newsom’s proposal on June 8. At the time, his idea was thought to be just an effort to get attention, but with the Wahab-Jones-Sawyer joint resolution now in play, gun owners might not be so ready to dismiss this as a publicity stunt.
Wahab was quoted by KCRA News, explaining, “It’s still a tall order. It’s not easy, and our country is very much divided, and the Second Amendment is a very respected and loved and feared amendment to touch in any way. I think this particular resolution protects the Second Amendment but also ensures states have the right to enforce and create their own laws.”
But Newsom’s proposed constitutional amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear arms, according to critics. Instead, the consensus is that the Newsom proposal guts the Second Amendment.
A report in The Patch spells out Newsom’s proposed 28th Amendment as AmmoLand did more than two months ago: “According to Newsom’s office,” The Patch detailed, “the Right to Safety Amendment…would leave the Second Amendment intact and would:
- Raise the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21;
- Mandate universal background checks;
- Institute a waiting period for all gun purchases;
- Ban assault rifles for civilians; and
- Affirm Congress, states and local governments can enact common-sense gun safety laws that save lives.”
But that doesn’t “leave the Second Amendment intact” at all. These changes would irreparably erode the Second Amendment. Currently, federal lawsuits are challenging limits placed on gun ownership and firearms carry for young adults, whose rights would essentially be trampled by Newsom’s scheme.
For example, the Second Amendment Foundation is fighting in Minnesota over that state’s ban on carry by young adults in a case known as Worth v. Harrington.
Newsom is taking this seriously, and so should gun owners, especially up and down the West Coast. Neighboring Oregon and Washington are no less dominated by far-left Democrats, who have been pushing extremist gun control laws for the past several years.
KTVU News quoted a Newsom statement: “In this country, we do have the power to change things. That power is written into the Constitution, and today we’re using it to end America’s gun violence crisis.”
Adding the gun control amendment to the Constitution is admittedly long shot, say observers. For example, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law Professor Chris Micheli told KCRA, “The governor has his work cut out for him.”
And the Sacramento Bee noted in its report that Newsom told reporters last week he is convinced “this is going to happen, that we’re going to get enough states” to approve the amendment.
That much was explained by the newspaper: “Two-thirds of states must pass similar constitutional convention legislation for the amendment to be successful. None of the 27 amendments have come from the convention process, and constitutional scholars have said the governor’s effort is ‘essentially impossible.’”
Seventy-five years ago, people said putting a man on the moon was impossible.
Also, Newsom has been critical of the U.S. Supreme Court in the wake of last year’s Bruen ruling, which has become something of a launch pad for legal actions challenging gun control laws across the country.
One glimmer of hope in an effort to fight Newsom’s proposal was revealed by The Patch. It quoted Adrian Malagon, chair of the Libertarian Party of California, which is an admittedly small group with “some 204,000 members as of 2021,” The Patch said.
Malagon reportedly said Newsom’s policies are “unconstitutional,” so he is now trying to change the Constitution.
“This is a hallmark of authoritarian leaders,” Malagon reportedly asserted.
This new development in Newsom’s effort raises the stakes just a bit, and removes any question that Democrats are a party—at least in California—determined to turn the right to keep and bear arms into a heavily-regulated government-controlled privilege.
RELATED:
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
There is a reason that true government isn’t taught in schools, specifically the constitution and how it pertains to American citizens. The dumbing down of people who don’t know the laws of the nation are the very ones who will fall prey by those who would subvert it. The American people are being misled by a mob disguised as representatives, they are nefarious and are always trying new ways to pervert the laws of the land.
You deserve the Tyranny and Tyrants… You allow. nuff said.
Well said.
oh i’m sure the dems/progs/leftists are supporting ol’ gav’s 28th Amendment push, they can’t wait to disarm the population to enslave us.
i almost fell out of my chair laughing when i read the first paragraph.
even though the sucamento bee put it in there, do they realize how difficult it is to amend the Constitution? someone needs to go back to school and do some learnin’.
hell, why don’t they just have ol’ joe use an executive order to do it? why waste time and effort?
These are Satan worshipping DEMONcrats we are taking about here they care nothing about tne people, THE FACT IS tin many cases they do not even care about themselves, the only thing they care about is disarming the citizens so it will be easier to enslave the people and allow mr bydens masters (china) to come in and take over with out firing a shot. The byden has already promised the country to china to do with as they want and please. Why do you think that hunter has spent so much time talking to them. It was all planned… Read more »
Good. Submit to every court the fact that the advocates for these laws have admited their illegality.
California Democrats want to subvert the Second Amendment?
Hold on while I put on my “Shocked Face.”
For arguments purpose let’s presume this proposal had any chace of passing. In the event it did here is what would occur: The current Constitution would be null and void and the Aricles of Confederation would again become the law of our nation. The federal government and all it’s parts established by the Constitution would be illegal. Reason: The Bill of Rights were a condition (requirement, see the State Ratification documents and minutes) of the States that ratified the second Constitution of 1789. Congress and the States passed the Bill of Rights to fullfll that requirement. If the Bill of… Read more »
Ask your governor to respond to Newsom with: The rights of the people, irrespective of sex, ethnicity, or any age greater than the age to vote, to keep, carry, use, purchase, sell, transfer, import, transport, innovate on, communicate about, or to manufacture arms, their accessories, components, and munitions shall not be restrained by prejudice or by law, by regulation, by treaty, by extraordinary tax, by fee, by tariff, by executive order, by history, nor by any other contrivance or treachery by Federal, Territory, Protectorate, District, State or Commonwealth governments or any subdivision thereof. Amendments need a preface: When in the… Read more »
Let’s take these idiotic points one by one: (Try to do it with out laughing.) 1) Raise the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21. What good are 18, 19 one 20 year old Army soldiers without firearms? 2) Mandate universal background checks. We already have an FBI background check and funny thing is the FBI is a joke and many legitimate “bad guys” get approved. 3) Institute a waiting period for all gun purchases. Many states already have this and they are UnConstitutional. How long should a law-abiding citizen have to wait to exercise a God… Read more »
4) Assault rifles are real, beginning with the StG 44. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_rifle It is Assault Weapon that is the made up term, meant to be confused by the ignorant with Assault Rifle.
I’ve never seen any firearm that ya couldn’t “assault” somebody with……..AR stands for Armalite Rifle.
So ANY firearm is an “assault weapon” if you assault someone with it.
So Assault rifle/weapo0n is a stupid made up term.
A DuckDuckGo search for “how many states are required to ratify”: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=how+many+states+are+required+to+ratify&atb=v340-1&ia=web Here is just one search return that may prove helpful: Article V and the amendment process https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-foundations/us-gov-ratification-of-the-us-constitution/a/article-v-and-the-amendment-process In short, either 3/4’s of both the Senate and the House of Representatives must agree to a new constitutional amendment, and/or 3/4’s of all the states must agree and vote for a new amendment accordingly. The above link explains the two possible paths for properly adding a new constitutional amendment. Three fourths of all states. With HALF of all states (25) now having some form of “constitutional carry” laws to protect… Read more »
As sure as s&#t, it never fails. Anti-2A politicians and activists NEVER go for punishing criminal misuse of guns. It’s ALWAYS about restricting civilian gun ownership. Show me an exception.
I have read the so-called proposed amendment, it’s based on nothing but LIES, no facts involved, just the same old tired dummy-rats talking points.
This pack of lies will never pass into any kind of law.