In June last year, Governor Gavin Newsom announced a bold plan on NBC’s “Today” show. He wanted to convince two-thirds of state legislatures in America to call for a constitutional convention to adopt national gun safety laws.
Newsom believed it was possible because people demanded it. However, many states are controlled by Republicans who usually oppose gun restrictions.
One year later, no other state has joined Newsom’s effort. Even in states controlled by Democrats, the proposal has not advanced. This suggests that Newsom’s plan has faced significant obstacles.
Newsom’s proposal gained media attention and boosted his national profile as a Democrat addressing gun violence. He cited a Fox News Poll showing strong voter support for gun restrictions.
The gun safety initiative also helped Newsom reach voters outside California, enhancing his appeal for a possible future White House run. However, he still faces the challenge of the 2nd Amendment.
Many lawmakers are hesitant to go against the powerful gun lobby and risk being seen as limiting the constitutional right to bear arms.
Newsom acknowledged the slow progress, saying support for a constitutional amendment on gun control could take 20 years. “No one was naive about this,” he said, noting that efforts like this have been done before but not recently.
Newsom’s plan needs two-thirds of states to pass resolutions supporting a constitutional convention. The new federal gun safety measures would then need ratification by three-fourths of state legislatures.
Newsom’s proposal includes universal background checks, raising the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21, a reasonable waiting period for gun purchases, and banning the sale of assault weapons to the public.
California passed a resolution in September supporting this constitutional convention. After this, Newsom and his team reached out to other states, seeking lawmakers with personal stories to lead the effort.
However, progress has been slow due to part-time legislatures, other legislative commitments, and political concerns.
Some lawmakers told Newsom’s aides that passing a resolution wasn’t feasible this year. In states like Idaho, with a strong gun culture, Newsom’s proposal has little chance of passing.
Idaho state Senator Melissa Winthrow noted that her state’s conservative stance on issues like abortion and firearms makes gun restrictions unlikely.
Even in blue states like Oregon and Washington, there has been no movement on Newsom’s proposal. Representatives from these states confirmed that there have been no discussions with Newsom about the gun control amendment.
Newsom didn’t answer directly whether his nationwide gun control campaign could affect President Biden’s reelection bid. He emphasized that his proposal preserves the right to bear arms and focuses on gun safety, which many Americans support.
Despite setbacks, Newsom’s team is building grassroots support, aiming to introduce the amendment in more states by 2025. They have recruited over a million supporters and trained thousands of volunteers to help.
However, amending the Constitution is challenging. Law professor Sanford Levinson from the University of Texas noted that it’s difficult to believe this proposal will gain nationwide support.
Newsom’s efforts mirror a similar attempt by Texas Governor Greg Abbott in 2016, which also struggled to gain traction.
Newsom’s plan faces significant challenges, but he remains committed to pushing for national gun safety laws.
Newsom’s plan is an overreach of government power. More gun control laws would infringe on individual freedoms and the right to self-defense.
Existing gun laws are already sufficient and that the focus should be on enforcing these laws rather than creating new ones.
Newsom’s plan are generally unrealistic and politically motivated. The Second Amendment clearly protects the right to bear arms and that any attempt to restrict this right is unconstitutional.
Newsom’s proposal would do little to actually reduce gun violence and will instead leave law-abiding citizens defenseless.
Newsom’s effort is a way to gain political points rather than a serious attempt to address the issue of gun violence.
