His 28th Amendment would raise the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21, ban so-called “assault weapons,” implement universal background checks, and install required waiting periods.
An amendment to cede Alaska to Russia would have a better chance of being enshrined in the Constitution. There is simply no chance that this frivolous and wholly unconstitutional proposal can get off the ground.
Critics across the nation and on both sides of the political aisle blasted the measure as a meaningless political stunt. Just consider what it must overcome to even reach the mandatory vote by the states.
Two-thirds of states and two-thirds of Congress need to get behind the Amendment just for it to be voted upon by the states. And a staggering three-quarters of states must approve of it to attach it to the Constitution as the 28th Amendment.
This is the very definition of grandstanding and futility.
Lara Smith of The Liberal Gun Club scorned the proposal to Fox News Digital. “I find it really frustrating as a liberal because we all know this is never going to happen. I think it’s grandstanding, and I find it offensive.”
She further accused Newsom of “twisting the statistics” to buttress his argument for the amendment. “Gun mortality is not a single issue,” she declared. “I just wish that Newsom would start focusing on the real issues and real solutions. The Liberal Gun Club supports what it calls ‘root cause mitigation,’ a strategy that addresses the driving factors of suicide, homicide, and mass shootings.”
Consider the numbers from the anti-gun organization Giffords. Currently 21 states require background checks for all gun sales. Ten, including California, mandate a minimum age of 21 for weapons purchases. Also, ten states and the District of Columbia imposed waiting periods and “assault weapon” bans.
So, exactly where is Newsom going to find 34 states to support his reckless proposal? Answer: he won’t.
And he knows it all too well.
For argument’s sake, say that he did. Then he would need three-quarters of states, or four more, to actually ratify. And that could only come if he could garner two-thirds of Congress to support the amendment proposal, and that’s a pipe dream.
The Founding Fathers intentionally made amending the Constitution an arduous process. They knew that such an undertaking should be approached soberly and have overwhelming support both in Congress and on the state level. It is no accident that the hurdles are high, and Newsom has no chance of clearing them.
The fallacy of this proposal may further be found in the fruitlessness of California’s restrictive gun control laws. As the most oppressive gun control bastion in the nation, it stands to reason that, according to anti-gun logic, the Golden State would be a haven for peace and harmony.
Far from it. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, California has more firearm homicides than any other state in the nation. Not enough proof?
The FBI reports the state is the home for the highest number of “active shooter incidents.” This is clearly not a resume on which to build national support for such a drastic move as amending the Constitution.
What is the end game for the California governor?
Most critics believe the politician is attempting to build national momentum towards a 2028 run for the presidency. If that is truly the case, he has done an enormous favor for those who support the Second Amendment.
Now he is on record wanting to eviscerate the constitutional protections of the right to keep and bear arms. There may be no backtracking, no posturing or trying to play both sides of the political fence. It is clear where he stands on individual rights, and for that, supporters of gun rights should be grateful.
