California Gov. Gavin Newsom is busy attempting to export his state’s failed gun control policies to the rest of the nation through the proposed 28th Amendment. This addition to the Constitution has zero chance of being ratified, but it may work to fire up his base and support his ambitions for higher office.

Last weekend, the Firearms Policy Coalition caught an interesting change that slipped into the proposal. 

The gun rights group posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter, that “the California resolution for an anti-gun constitutional amendment has been amended to say that it wants to ban ‘the sale, loan, or transfer of assault weapons’ (instead of ‘private possession’) only for ‘private civilians.’”

What does this mean? Police and government officials are exempt from California’s proposed nationwide ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Private civilians, meaning law-abiding taxpayers, would be prohibited from possessing these popular weapons while officials could continue to enjoy this freedom.

And what would this amendment entail? No one under the age of 21 would be permitted to purchase a firearm. Universal background checks would be mandated, a “reasonable” waiting period would be instituted for all purchases and so-called “assault weapons” would be banned.

As Gov. Newsome described his proposal, he labeled these popular rifles as weapons “that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.”

The recent change in wording begs the question of why anyone would, given Newsom’s description, be allowed to have these weapons. If they serve no purpose except for mass destruction, is it logical for government officials to be permitted to keep them?

It is worth noting that California is hardly a bastion for peace and public safety. Cities such as San Francisco are crumbling under a wave of lawlessness, and a largely disarmed public is helpless to stop the decline.

What does not work for one state has no business being imposed onto the other 49.