Link to article:
https://apnews.com/article/california-governor-newsom-constitutional-amendment-guns-6895729e1c3ebee7075e28d04c500063

48 comments

  1. Disagree with it completely but also not worried at all. Just Beto-style publicity stunt to get brownie points from the base, clearly not a real attempt to actually do anything.

  2. It may create some interesting discussion nationwide, to put it mildly, but I doubt we’ll see any action on it for at least 10 years, if ever.

  3. I think he wants to throw his hat in the presidential race at some point and this is performative political theater. He knows it will go nowhere.

  4. I think it’s just to get national attention on himself. There’s no chance of any amendment passing with our level of division, and this one would be vehemently opposed by hundreds of millions of people.

  5. I have little opinion on any amendment that’s clearly not going anywhere HOWEVER it does feel like further proof that he’s running for the nomination. I’m a little surprised he hasn’t formally announced yet. It might be a bit of a dick move to primary a sitting POTUS who is a fellow party member but I have to assume he would win that primary handedly with a better shot at the general election than Biden.

    I suppose he feels he has enough time for Biden to either screw up badly enough that the party doesn’t hold it against him or that POTUS’s health takes a turn for the worse.

  6. It’s a bit too vague to be a good amendment, also it is never going to happen, so to me this is just another publicity stunt.

  7. Absolutely outrageous but it’s incredibly refreshing to see anti-gun advocates actually take the mask off and be honest about their intentions and want to working within the constraints of rule of law to advance their agenda rather than simply act like it’s okay to ignore parts of the Constitution they don’t like.

  9. It’s just a symbolic move since there isn’t a realistic path to amending the constitution.

    Personally I’m not a gun owner and don’t have a strong stance either way on the 2nd amendment.

  10. 1. In order to pass more comprehensive gun control we’re going to have to amend the constitution. That is years, decades away from happening.

    2. His proposed amendment is good. I wouldn’t have any problems with it. Republicans have wanted to call a constitutional convention for years.

    3. It’s just a publicity stunt for his 2028 presidential campaign. Though I do not want him as the dem nominee. It would be a great way to lose every swing state.

  11. He’s grandstanding for anti-gun democrats. There is zero chance of anything he’s proposing actually happening.

  12. My dog is going to get a job.

    Let’s all just say things that will never happen!

  13. Short answer: Nothing more than a move to get attention. I’m sure he knows it will go absolutely nowhere. That being the case, I find it incredibly selfish and self-centered to somehow be advancing his own political career rather than doing something meaningful. Kind of shameful honestly.

    To propose *as a Constitutional amendment* what would, if anything, fit better as legislation, is like he’s ensuring for himself that this will flop. Two thirds of *both* houses of Congress, or two thirds of all of the states asking for this? Not a chance in hell.

    Then the contents of the thing come across as not thought through at all. Examples, quoting from the California state government website:

    > Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime

    Background checks already exist, going through the national system maintained by the FBI. Can private transfers take place without a NICS check? Yes. Of recent shootings, would this have stopped any of them? I doubt it. You either have street violence with stolen guns, or total negligence with insecure firearms that were purchased legally and passed a background check, or X-Y-Z other scenario. This also does nothing to prevent straw purchases and arms trafficking.

    I just don’t see how this accomplishes anything.

    > 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.

    The latter bit of it is trivial to shoot down. I’m fairly certain this has already been covered in at least one Supreme Court case. Basically if you were to play the “founders never foresaw this” card then you are setting precedent that the 1st amendment can’t possibly apply to the internet, radio, etc – beyond the wildest dreams of people in the 1700’s.

    Moreover, playing the bit about “these were designed to shoot as much as possible in the shortest amount of time” – when has that not been the case? You could say the same about revolvers and lever-action guns in the 1800’s.

    So to recap – proposals that either don’t make sense or won’t accomplish anything, set up to be in an amendment that will never pass. All of which is blatantly obvious. Just so some guy can get some more attention for himself.

  14. Political grandstanding and possibly political suicide.

    An amendment would take a 2/3 vote from Congress (hint: ain’t gonna happen) OR he has to convince 33 states (well, 32 states because he’s a given) to call for a constitutional convention. Know how many of those have ever happened? And how long ago? Yeah that ain’t happening either. So it’s just lip service in the end.

    Before he keeps pushing the issue, he should talk to Eric Swalwel and Beto O’Rourke and see how well that platform worked out for their political careers.

  16. It’s just for attention. Not even worth giving it any attention.

    The process to Amend the Constitution is insanely difficult. Government can’t agree on anything, there’s no way they would be able to pass any Constitutional Amendment.

  18. Political grandstanding that don’t appeal the country, but to Anti-gun democrats he wants to court for a future presidential run.

  20. As others have said, it’s political virtue signaling. He knows it’s not going to pass. There may be some merit to background checks/raising the minimum age to 21, but assault weapon bans are stupid.

    In a way though, it’s great, because he is shooting his eventual presidential campaign in the foot before it even begins.

  21. I don’t really care either way about guns, but I know this proposal will never go anywhere in my lifetime.

    I don’t love the maximalist interpretation that some 2nd Amendment supporters insist on, but on the otherhand, I’m not in favor of altering or jettisoning an existing amendment without a compelling existential need. Otherwise, parts of the Constitution that I find much more important could also be potentially fair game if the political whims of the moment find parts of the text inconvenient for their purposes.

  22. It likely won’t pass. But, it will bring him a lot of money to run his campaign which is probably his main objective.

  23. The fact that he thinks it will help get him votes is scary. My natural rights are not up for debate. This isn’t just an amendment like the 18th and 21st. This is one of the bill of rights, which has long standingly *recognized* my inherent rights. Anyone proposing to amend one of the 10 is for tyrany in my opinion.

  24. Good, but I’ll be downvoted for saying that.

    I volunteer with a few organizations one for gun regulation and one focused on better mental health access, and nobody that I’ve met at either is a gun owner.

    Gun owners don’t want regulations but many many (the majority?) also don’t want to offer or find any solutions that could possibly reduce gun violence. From my lived experience gun owners are okay with the status quo of kids dying as long as any solution is going to cost them tax money or their guns.

  25. Can’t be any smarter than his idea to have us all driving electric cars by 2035 completely ignoring the fact our power grid can’t even handle us all using the AC at the same time!

    I mean things got so bad last summer, that he even issued a public statement asking people NOT to charge/drive their electric cars as much! SMH

    The guy is an absolute joke and a total Hypocrite to boot!

  26. It’s refreshing to see a politician try to tackle the gun issue. It won’t go anywhere but it’s better than not doing anything

    His approach isn’t perfect but he’s doing more than most governors

  28. If he hates that we have constitutinoal rights in America that much maybe he should find another country to live in.

  29. Everything was so nice up until “weapon ban.” The weapons ban is enough for me to say no to this since I know he won’t compromise. Any chance he had of me voting for him ever again is gone. I’m disappointed but not really surprised.

  31. I can not support constitutional amendments that grant more powers to the government and restrict the rights of individuals. That being said it is good to hear a gun control advocate proposing a constitutional amendment and calling for changes through a legal process rather than ignoring the constitution as it currently is. It does seem to be almost an admission that an amendment is needed and current gun control laws are not constitutional. I wonder if Newsom will speak on how calls for an amendment line up with his government’s defense of California’s gun control laws in the courts.

  33. Good for him for identifying the only method (Amendment) that would work for what he wants to do. That’s better than a lot of politicians (on both sides) who want to do stuff they’re not allowed to do by the Constitution.

    No chance he’s going to get 2/3 of the states (34) to call a convention on that, let alone get 3/4 of them (38) to ratify it. Right now, the states seem to be moving the other way, with over half allowing some form of “Constitutional Carry.”

    In short, it’s a publicity stunt, and nothing more.

  34. For my entire lifetime, both sides of the political spectrum had “constitutionalists” — people who might not agree with every specific thing in the US Constitution, but who would defend every part of it, and would defend the people exercising rights granted them by the Constitution.

    People on the Left might not like the gun rights protected by the Second Amendment, but they respected the constitutional right to bear arms. People on the Right might oppose Abortion as a policy matter, but they accepted *Roe v. Wade* as settled law, and respected the constitutional rights it recognized.

    Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell blew up that balance. On both reproductive rights and voting rights, Republicans have decided to win at any cost. The cost is they’ve put gun rights in the realm of “constitutionally protected, for now.” Newsom is just the first of what we’re going to see a lot of in the near future. The Left will no longer respect the second amendment as unchangeable and in any way sacred. They’ll treat it exactly like the Right has treated “their” constitutional protections.

    Personally, I’m a constitutionalist. But the Constitution has to be for everyone. What Newsom’s doing is the predictable result of the GOP success at politicizing constitutional law. Enjoy your AR’s while you can!

  35. > It would institute what he called a “reasonable” waiting period for all gun purchases

    Define reasonable and we’re good

    > ban so-called assault rifles throughout the country,

    The fact it’s ‘so-called’ highlights the problem here.

    > require universal background checks

    Good, *now enforce it*

    > raise the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21.

    So you can handle a gun in the military and be potentially shot at, but not out of it?

    You want to restrict *rifles* to 21, now that’s at least considerable.

  37. I haven’t read anything about it so I’m completely qualified to comment on it and tell you that it won’t work

  38. The argument for removing “assault weapons” from citizens because the founding fathers never foresaw semi-automatic weapons is absolutely laughable and asinine.

  39. There is absolutely no way he is getting a two-thirds majority for that amendment.

  40. I put this in the same boat that I put the reparations non-sense that the state of California has been doing:

    It’s virtue signaling.
    Considering how many people and businesses have left California as of late, that state is in no place to try to impose their views on the rest of the country.

    At the end of the day, no matter how people try to spin it or dress it up, a state that has people and businesses leaving is making a mistake of some sort. States should compete to attract businesses and people, and California is doing terribly at either. My personal favorite boondoggle from that state was the high speed rail system and the French assisting with it.

    They bailed because of how politically dysfunctional that state is.

  41. How to destroy your presidential campaign before starting it. The support universal background checks, but not “further restrictions” lol

  42. I do not think specific regulations should go in the Constitution, on any issue. It’s dumb.

  43. I don’t have a particularly high opinion of it because I tend to be closer to a 2A absolutist than most. I also think it’s a stunt more than a real push to shore up our nation’s gun laws. Not only is it not happening but there are dangers in having a constitutional convention of the States. There is no guarantee that they’d stay on topic about gun control. A lot could get changed quickly.

    However, I do appreciate that he’s going about it in the proper way. The 2A is in the Constitution and altering it requires amending it. It’s better than passing some performative law that’s going to be struck down and wasting your taxpayer’s money in doomed court battles.

  45. It’s political theater and attention whoring and has zero percent chance of happening.

  46. Only 7% of ALL gun crimes (nationally) are done by legal gun owners. It’s a dog whistle political stunt but a political c☆nt.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like