Gov. Gavin Newsom calls for constitutional amendment to curb gun access
Source: NBCNews.com
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has proposed a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would restrict gun ownership, a response to what the governor described as an "existential crisis" of mass shootings in America.
The California Democrat wants to raise the minimum age to buy a firearm to 21, mandate universal background checks, impose a waiting period on buyers and ban the civilian purchase of assault weapons.
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/gavin-newsom-calls-constitutional-amendment-curb-gun-access-rcna57951
This is gutsy. I support this.
For those who say "It'll never happen. It's a waste of time. It's too hard and improbable..." I point you to Roe vs. Wade. People thought that was forever, but conservatives worked patiently for 50 years and got it overturned.
If it takes 50 years to get a 28th amendment, or the 2nd repealed, we should do it. The earlier we start, the earlier it'll happen.
This country is such a far outlier in gun violence statistics - even when compared to countries with civil war and civil unrest - that we have to do something. Anything.
Faux pas
(14,672 posts)MayReasonRule
(1,461 posts)brooklynite
(94,520 posts)revmclaren
(2,520 posts)Guess it never happened because making a speech doesn't start anything.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)What is Newsom doing?
revmclaren
(2,520 posts)When Governor Newsom makes a speech, he follows through with the agenda. I haven't seen anyone else make this important statement and it only takes one pebble rolling down a hill to start a landslide.
The momentum will pick up and I'm sure he will talk to Biden who does have executive authority to begin the process.
It will take time but people are getting angry and frustrated. I hope I live to see the change.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)...last time I checked.
The Unmitigated Gall
(3,807 posts)ananda
(28,859 posts)You have to start somewhere... and a good
idea is a good start.
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)MayReasonRule
(1,461 posts)May reason rule across our troubled land!
Mysterian
(4,587 posts)Gotta start somewhere. Throwing up your hands and screeching, "it can't be done," is certain to accomplish nothing.
tonekat
(1,814 posts)Something must be done.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)ColinC
(8,291 posts)Getting the ball rolling is an incredible first step
MayReasonRule
(1,461 posts)ColinC
(8,291 posts)There has been virtually no argument against rolling back the second amendment out of fear of political loss. Im pretty sure a lot more has been lost than won as a result.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)ColinC
(8,291 posts)which is the primary hinderance towards common sense gun reform. It still might not happen, but with a major figure like Newsom speaking out, that could change.
brooklynite
(94,520 posts)ColinC
(8,291 posts)onetexan
(13,040 posts)republianmushroom
(13,590 posts)12 have not ratified the Equal Rights Amendment yet.
And this started in 1972,
Nev ratified it in 2017. 45 years after it was purposed. Guns don't think so.
Amendment to guns, Newson is dreaming.
revmclaren
(2,520 posts)And people are getting tired of the gun culture nightmare.
NBachers
(17,108 posts)CTyankee
(63,912 posts)It is simply duplicitous to argue the 2nd amendment which was written in a time of muskets. It would be laughable if it weren't so tragically wrong.
WalkerinSC
(230 posts)The musket and muzzle loading rifle was the standard infantry weapon of the day. One could argue that the 2nd Amendment was written that a citizen had a right to the same arms available to the military. It's a slippery slope. I don't have any problems with background checks, minimum ages (I couldn't buy a handgun until 21, wasn't a big deal), or even a short waiting period. I would go as far to require training certs to buy or possess particular types of rifles (bolt action, single shot, semi auto) and shotguns (breech, pump, semi auto) like required in SC to obtain a hunting license. The sticky point is the "assault weapon". How will that be classified? Attachments? Military heritage (which would be all guns)? Removable magazine? I have a Ruger Mini 14. Is it an assault rifle. It is used by police in some countries and can use 5.54 or .223? Mine is chambered for .44 Magnum but it is still the same rifle in looks and operation. Will this grandfather in existing ownership or will the government be buying them from individuals?
Like I said, most are reasonable but will be a hard sell in most areas. You never know until you try though.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)cite here. If they haven't, shame on them. But let's not assume anything. They have clerks who do this kind of research all the time. It's what they do. They learn what you have learned. You and they live on the same planet and have the Internet and can call in those with military and law enforcement agency backgrounds and know what you cite here.
The only question is will they do it.
CaptainTruth
(6,589 posts)Guns do damage by delivering kinetic energy to a target. Each round delivers a measurable amount of energy, more or less depending on the round.
Instead of worrying about how to define "assault rifle" why can't we set a maximum rate of energy delivery that applies to all weapons?
For example, an AR-15 that's limited to firing 1 round per second might be OK because it's under the maximum rate of kinetic energy delivery, but one that can fire 10-15 rounds per second in not OK because it delivers too much energy too quickly.
Develop a measurable verifiable science-based standard & apply it to all weapons.
You want a shoulder fired anti-tank missile? Sorry, it delivers to much energy too quickly.
You want a grenade launcher? Sorry, it delivers to much energy too quickly.
You want a 155mm howitzer? Sorry, it delivers to much energy too quickly.
You want a fully automatic machine gun? Sorry, it delivers to much energy too quickly.
We could do this, it's not hard to develop a standard & define test & measurement methods, we do much more complex things every day in America, all it would take is the political will.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)due to the weapons you describe.
My niece died from a single shot fired by a family member with a handgun he owned for "self defense."
He was up to that point a law abiding citizen. He kept a handgun loaded and in a nightstand drawer, for "protection" should a thief break in some night while he was asleep. On the day of my niece's murder he was upset because his wife was dying and did not have him in her will and he was drunk. It was a perfect storm: access, anger and alcohol.
As a result, my brother, already alcohol prone virtually drank himself to death. The victim's sister, overcome by guilt for not going with her that night to help her grandparents, changed her life plans and went into the ministry. Her mother, who was also shot, recovered from her wounds.
This happened in Texas.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)because they just make it too easy.
I know you've carefully selected and maintained your own collection, but your hobby is just costing this country too much.
Guns that are designed for hunting people really need to go and should never have gotten into civilian hands in the first place.
It will likely take years to accomplish this. Too many people love the feeling of power firing these things gives them. It will also require cooperation among government agencies, gun manufacturers, ammo manufacturers, and whatever the NRA becomes without Russian money and influence.
Please note that I am not totally anti gun. I live in bear and cougar country, and people outside the city need guns to scare them out of the trash and kill the one in a million having a bad enough day that it charges.
Fritz Walter
(4,291 posts)By now, they have launched umpteen-thousand email/direct-mail "emergency" appeals for funds citing this threat to (their perception of) civilization as we know it! And where would those funds go? Straight into the PACs and campaign funds of the "you'll have to pry (a gun) from my cold lifeless hands" politicians. At all level of government.
So, my idea is this: if the US Government can revoke the tax-exempt status of the PGA (as it merges with the Saudi's "LIV Golf" ), should the feds not also consider revoking the tax-exempt status of the NRA?
According to Wikipedia,
According to The Washington Post, 501(c)(4) organizations:
...are allowed to participate in politics, so long as politics do not become their primary focus. What that means in practice is that they must spend less than 50 percent of their money on politics. So long as they don't run afoul of that threshold, the groups can influence elections, which they typically do through advertising.
Clearly, with the number of mass shootings recently, "promoting the common good and general welfare of the people of the 'community' " is not happening here. They are a political and commercial (gun manufacturers, dealers) welfare organization.
Tax 'em!
forgotmylogin
(7,528 posts)But that's how you change an amendment - with another amendment. That's how women got the right to vote, alcohol was banned then reinstated, slavery was abolished, the Electoral College set up.
Repubs are no strangers to the idea of repealing or adjusting other amendments...
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
sanatanadharma
(3,703 posts)Properly framed the out-of-control no-controls people will have to be anti-life.
I don't think this 28th amendment will be a fifty year project.
LiberalFighter
(50,912 posts)federal law prohibiting gun manufacturers from selling assault weapons to civilians or on the civilian market.
The Grand Illuminist
(1,331 posts)Elect pro convention state house candidates.
TeamProg
(6,124 posts)TeamProg
(6,124 posts)And of course they're taking donations..
The Jungle 1
(4,552 posts)Same as their healthcare plan. Repukes don't give a rats ass.
William Seger
(10,778 posts)We will never have effective gun control as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to mean guns can't be controlled.
cstanleytech
(26,291 posts)gun laws can be tossed out of Court.
wnylib
(21,447 posts)state legislatures who will support it.
We should be doing much more at local levels anyway. School boards, city councils, state assembly members and state senators. Move them up the ranks. Obama was once a state senator for Illinois.
FBaggins
(26,732 posts)... I say you obviously don't understand the amendment process.
It's one thing to say "wait 50 years for a new court to overturn a previous court ruling"
It's entirely different to say "get a 2/3 majority in both houses (when we aren't close to majority support for such an amendment in either chamber) and then get 38 states to agree"
The first is just a matter of time because the country is with us on the issue. The second won't happen in the next century because they aren't.
MayReasonRule
(1,461 posts)Our "freedoms" only exist in application.
If we of reason desist, delusion will continue to rule, making life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness little more than boilerplate aspirations scribbled across a page.
Here's to our success sooner rather than later!!
JohnSJ
(92,187 posts)happen
J_William_Ryan
(1,753 posts)Such an amendment might garner more support and its intent would be crystal clear.
JohnSJ
(92,187 posts)election changes the dynamics, it wont happen for a while if ever.
I dont think the 2/3 requirement are there in Congress or in enough state legislatures
https://ged.com/practice-test/en/acs/social-studies/page_2.html
Polybius
(15,398 posts)More like 2074. We'll never have a 2/rds majority imo. Nor will they.
Stuart G
(38,421 posts)Back in the 50s and 60s when I was young and a child and a teenager... ..I THOUGHT THESE WOULD NEVER HAPPEN:
1. I would own a computer.....(at that time it was a dream,,(only in Science Fiction)
2. I would be alive to see an Afro-American become President of the U.S.A. .....Not only was I alive, I voted for the individual twice.
3. I would travel across the U.S.A. Yes, I have done that too. (haven't been to Alaska or Hawaii yet)
4. Have Color TV.........That one is too old to talk about..
5. Invest in the N Y Sock Market...Yes, got that too.
6. Graduate from College...Did that too
7. Get Married, also Got Divorced
8. Collect Too Much Stuff...Would you like some old ..."Lesson Plans" from the 80s and 90s.
ificandream
(9,372 posts)You know if it wasn't for Biden, he'd probably be the Democratic front runner.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)wish for a unicorn given the present circumstances. There is a chance a different SCOTUS could change what constitutes a militia and that could open the door for serious gun control.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)The Grand Illuminist
(1,331 posts)and have the convention can bypass all that.
Demsrule86
(68,556 posts)It won't work.
Angleae
(4,482 posts)That's right, all the convention can do is propose amendments, they can't actually amend the constitution by themselves.
mahina
(17,651 posts)Makes me want to throw up. I dont know if Gavin Newsomes got a good idea here or not but I havent heard a better idea.