SACRAMENTO, CA – Governor Gavin Newsom recently called for a national Constitutional Convention to limit gun access. The California legislators voted to extend that call.
“In the face of decades of Congressional inaction and unelected judges that are putting Americans in danger," the governor said in a public statement, "it is time for citizens to stand up for common sense to protect us against the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence."
Newsom, the nephew of Senator Nancy Pelosi, is seeking to severely hamper Americans' right to keep and bear arms without government infringement.
He wants to eliminate gun ownership for most Americans under the age of 21. The exception to that would likely be members of the military and law enforcement officers with the handful of agencies that allow officers to be commissioned prior to the age of 21.
He would also like to implement universal background checks, ushering in a national gun registry.
Finally, Newsom wants to make ownership of “assault” weapons and other “weapons of war” illegal.
"This is a very serious and consequential time in our country’s history," Gov. Newsom said inside of a school library in Elk Grove, according to KCRA. "Spare me that the solution is hardening doors and not addressing the issue, which is these weapons of war, these weapons of mass destruction. I want to be in a world where at least we have a chance of doing that, and I want to live in a state where we can do that."
Others in the state legislature echoed Newsom’s sentiment.
"I think it will hopefully save lives. That’s what we’re here to do," State Sen. Aisha Wahab said after filing Senate Joint Resolution 7. "It's still a tall order. It's not easy, and our country is very much divided, and the Second Amendment is a very respected and loved and feared amendment to touch in any way.
I think this particular resolution protects the Second Amendment but also ensures states have the right to enforce and create their own laws."
Unfortunately for Newsom and the rest of the California legislators in favor of the move, it would require 33 additional states to adopt similar resolutions calling for that convention. It would also require 38 states to ratify whatever new Constitutional language that convention produced.
Of the 33 other states needed, Chris Micheli, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law, said, "The governor has his work cut out for him. Many [of those states] are dominated by Republicans who are not interested in taking any measure to affect the Second Amendment.”
Even in California, there are some voicing their concerns about a convention call, as there are no rules saying that the convention can be only about one topic.
California Democrat Senator Scott Weiner, who was one of two Democrats to vote against the call, said on the Senate floor:
“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. 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.”
“In the face of decades of Congressional inaction and unelected judges that are putting Americans in danger," the governor said in a public statement, "it is time for citizens to stand up for common sense to protect us against the uniquely American epidemic of gun violence."
Newsom, the nephew of Senator Nancy Pelosi, is seeking to severely hamper Americans' right to keep and bear arms without government infringement.
He wants to eliminate gun ownership for most Americans under the age of 21. The exception to that would likely be members of the military and law enforcement officers with the handful of agencies that allow officers to be commissioned prior to the age of 21.
He would also like to implement universal background checks, ushering in a national gun registry.
Finally, Newsom wants to make ownership of “assault” weapons and other “weapons of war” illegal.
"This is a very serious and consequential time in our country’s history," Gov. Newsom said inside of a school library in Elk Grove, according to KCRA. "Spare me that the solution is hardening doors and not addressing the issue, which is these weapons of war, these weapons of mass destruction. I want to be in a world where at least we have a chance of doing that, and I want to live in a state where we can do that."
Others in the state legislature echoed Newsom’s sentiment.
"I think it will hopefully save lives. That’s what we’re here to do," State Sen. Aisha Wahab said after filing Senate Joint Resolution 7. "It's still a tall order. It's not easy, and our country is very much divided, and the Second Amendment is a very respected and loved and feared amendment to touch in any way.
I think this particular resolution protects the Second Amendment but also ensures states have the right to enforce and create their own laws."
Unfortunately for Newsom and the rest of the California legislators in favor of the move, it would require 33 additional states to adopt similar resolutions calling for that convention. It would also require 38 states to ratify whatever new Constitutional language that convention produced.
Of the 33 other states needed, Chris Micheli, a professor at the McGeorge School of Law, said, "The governor has his work cut out for him. Many [of those states] are dominated by Republicans who are not interested in taking any measure to affect the Second Amendment.”
Even in California, there are some voicing their concerns about a convention call, as there are no rules saying that the convention can be only about one topic.
California Democrat Senator Scott Weiner, who was one of two Democrats to vote against the call, said on the Senate floor:
“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. 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.”
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments