I’d like to make fun of Governor Nuisance for this, but I can’t. I can only disagree. He wants to use the process of amending the Constitution. That’s the right way to do it. But that’s the only right thing about his proposed 28th Amendment.
The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:
-
- Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
- Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
- Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
- Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time – weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.
Additionally, the 28th Amendment will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations that save lives.
Newsom never offers the actual language, just a handful of ideas common to left-Wing gun grabbers that have never made anyone safer.
We also have to assume that the definitions of terms like “truly dangerous,” “reasonable,” or “assault weapon,” “common,” or “sense.” After all, when it comes to public safety, I think a reasonable person with common sense should consider Gavin Newsom to be truly dangerous to public safety.
Newsom is also calling for an Article V convention.
Passage of the 28th Amendment will require a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also known as an Article V Convention or amendatory convention. Working in partnership with members of the California State Senate and Assembly, California will be the first state in the nation to call for such a convention with a joint resolution being introduced by California State Senator Aisha Wahab and Assemblymember Reggie Jones-Sawyer. The Governor will work with grassroots supporters, elected and civic leaders, and broad and diverse coalitions across the nation to fight for the passage of similar resolutions in other state legislatures to ensure the convening of a constitutional convention limited to this subject. 33 other states, in addition to California, would need to take action to convene such a convention.
Is Newsom doing this to hijack the effort already underway to convene just such a convention to advance gun-grabbing progressive priorities? Or is he hoping to undermine the effort by the Liberty Amendment folks hoping an Article V convention can be convened to restrain abuses by the federal government?
The risk of his proposed Article 28 will have to enter any discussion by state legislatures courted for an Article V convention could undermine the effort to achieve the states needed.
There was a heated debate on our pages this past session over the good or bad (real or perceived) of such an endeavor. It is actually quite good with both sides, including lobbyists, lawyers, and others, adding their thoughts. The same debate occurred in grassroots groups, GOP committees, and the debate is good. It should not be mistaken for division but often is, by one side or the other, in an effort to get their way. The question was whether New Hampshire should add its name to the list of states needed to hold such a convention.
The New Hampshire Legislature rejected the 2023 proposed measures to enter into such an agreement. HCR 1 failed to pass the NH House 156-192. HCR4 died in the same chamber 224-145. Not exactly close, but how does Newsom’s proposed gun-grabbing amendment play when the Article V folks rally for another shot?
Does it rally Democrats to support it? Enough to push it through? Do Republicans use that and try to pass it despite this new risk, or do more of them shift or balk? Is that what Newsom wants, or does he truly think he can scratch his gun-grabbin’ itch with a constitutional amendment?