By KENNETH SCHRUPP | THE CENTER SQUARE
The California State Legislature passed Governor Gavin Newsom’s call for a national Constitutional Convention to limit gun access.
Prominent Democrats and Second Amendment advocates alike have criticized the decision to push for a convention, noting that there would be no limits on what such a convention could add or remove in a new draft of the national constitution.
“In the face of decades of Congressional inaction and unelected judges that are putting Americans in danger, it is time for citizens to stand up for common sense to protect us against the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence,” said Newsom in a public statement.
Newsom’s proposed national amendment would end most gun ownership for those under 21, mandate universal background checks (and thus, a national gun registry), a minimum waiting period before a gun is transferred to a buyer, and ban “assault weapons and other weapons of war.”
Thirty-four state legislatures would have to adopt resolutions calling for a convention, and three quarters of states would have to ratify whatever the convention produces. Instead of a convention, the Constitution could also be amended by a two-thirds vote from both bodies of Congress and ratification by three quarters of states.
Prominent Democrats, including State Senator Scott Wiener, have voiced significant concern about such a convention. Wiener was the lone Democrat to not vote for the resolution in committee, and one of two Democrats to vote against the bill during the Senate floor vote.
“This is not a non-binding resolution. This is California going on record for the process of triggering a constitutional convention. When you reach a legal threshold, a constitutional convention is triggered,” said Wiener during the hearing before the vote in the Senate Committee on Public Safety. “There is nothing that says the calls for a convention have to be identical. There is nothing in the Constitution that says we can have a Constitutional convention limited to one topic.”
Many Second Amendment advocacy groups, including Gun Owners of California, have voiced similar concerns about a runaway convention while also noting the low odds such a convention could occur and that such a change would even be ratified.
“The door will be flung wide open for other issues – not related to firearms – to be addressed. Even though the resolution states that the request for an amendment would be withdrawn if the delegates consider any other subjects, it is naïve to believe this would happen, plus its very clear that once a Constitutional Convention is called, it cannot be undone,” said Gun Owners of California Executive Director Sam Paredes in a letter to the California Senate. “No resolution from the State of California will have any binding authority on what could occur should a Convention actually be called.”
“Given that 27 of the 50 States have declared themselves “Constitutional Carry” and are actively working to divest themselves of statutes that violate the Second Amendment, this is an obvious [sic] unattainable goal,” Paredes continued.
Good luck with that.
Never gonna get 3/4 of the states to go along. Especially as your progressive utopias fall into anarchy.
This is a move to boost hair gels national status. Nothing more.
Agreed. Tiresome oldsome is a lot of noise and posturing.
And the extremists of the radical left tip their hat yet again: they HATE you, and they even more HATE your ability to defend yourself. And most of all, they LOVE the all-encompassing and totalitarian state. They are evil, and that fact is inarguable.
There is a thing called the Constitution that will get in the way. This is what you get with no laws or enforcement. The energy should be directed at law and order.
Hello??? Did you actually read the article?
The whole point is to have a constitutional convention to CHANGE the US constitution. Remember prohibition??? The constitutional 18th amendment, which thankfully was repealed with the 21st amendment. The same thinking is at work here.
There is a move here in the state to support a constitutional convention to add a term limit amendment to the US constitution, same thing.
I did read it and the convention will not happen. To much to risk to allow politicians to put their own rules in place.
There’s a big, bloody elephant in the room, Gavin…and it isn’t a pile of guns…
If you want to protect the lives of innocent children, overturn the laws that permit them to be slaughtered without consequence, innocent and defenseless, in the womb.
Biden is dying, no one wants Kamala, and Newsom wants to rewrite the Constitution.
Who is the DNC going to prop up for 2024?
Big Mike Obama, of course.
And its campaign slogan? “Gender Change we can believe in!”
😂🤣😂🤣🤣
Tyrants and dictators will always do two things on their way to absolute power.
1. legalize/normalize drug use, and
2. outlaw private ownership of arms.
.
Drugs (or other forms of pleasure) are a method the government can use to control the population.
Arms is a method the population can use to control the government.
.
Anyone that values personal freedoms will be opposed to restrictive laws on law abiding and responsible ownership of arms. Those that want restrictions invariably abhor personal freedoms.
A superb idea. It’s way past time for an overhaul of the Second Amendment. Newsom for President, too!
A troll says “What?”.
Newsom wants to trash the entire constitution and rewrite it California style so they can get the green light on abortion 30 days after the hour of birth that they were fighting for two years ago.
There are a lot of kids born in Cali with a ton of drug abuse related issues that they simply dont want to deal with so their solution is euthanized abortion.
Another superb idea of his!
What right, in your opinion, does the 2nd Amendment protect?
And, this is a serious question. I am interested in knowing why you think the 2nd should be overhauled, and why.
Let’s overhaul the rights of people who want the constitution changed. Dog Spence you’re so unhappy here my I sunset China, Russia, North Korea , Iran as some places with your views. Move on to someplace else.
Dog are you afraid? The second amendment won’t harm you but a low life criminal might and they may have a kitchen knife or a rock. Let’s outlaw anything that will harm poor dog.
Now THAT will forment an insurrection….A real one.
The concerns about a “runaway convention” are most often voiced by the left (however insincerely) in their opposition to various efforts of those on the political right to call a national convention and were a prominent feature of the NO campaign against a state constitutional convention here in Alaska last year. These concerns are generally false because the convention (whether national or state) does not have the power to unilaterally amend the constitution; it can only propose amendments which must be ratified according to the constitutional process (approval by 3/4 of the state legislatures for the U.S. Constitution, or a majority popular vote in the case of Alaska’s Constitution).
Even if Newsome’s convention were called, there is simply no way that 3/4 of the states would vote to repeal, or significantly abridge, the 2nd Amendment. The only real danger is that the Constitution prescribes no timeline for a proposed amendment to be ratified; many individual amendments did (the 21st Amendment, which repealed prohibition, specified 7 years from the date of proposal) but others did not, which led to the 27th Amendment being ratified in 1992 – more than 200 years after its original proposal in 1789! An amendment could therefore be proposed and gradually ratified, quietly, over a period of decades as the politics in each state swing back and forth.
Good point about the timeline! Let’s add that to the agenda for the next “convention of states” – I believe that is the correct term for what we are talking about here.
In 1960, Fidel Castro declared that the Cuban populace should be armed as “free” people. However by 1965 he changed his mind and started doubting his popularity so a campaign was started demanding that all citizens turn in their firearms or otherwise face the revolutionary tribunals. The media by then was owned by the government and articles after articles were published, shaming people for owning firearms. Shortly after the populace was disarmed, Castro declared that the “revolution” was a socialist one in nature, something he had not declared before. By then it was too late for any dissenters as they had no way to push back. The rest is history.
Mass exodus from California should give all politicians in the state notice that working class citizens, businesses and families want no part of their Club of Rome, WEF, UN, socialist, totalitarian, communist agenda. “You will own nothing and be happy.”
Law abiding citizens are NOT committing gun violence. The “Invasion” across our open borders, drugs, human trafficking, corrupt self serving politicians, rogue ABC organizations that spew nothing but lies, lies, lies are the real problems in what is left of our country.
Benjamin Franklin ~ Those that are willing to forfeit liberty for temporary security will have neither.
Comments are closed.