by Joe Wolverton at thenewamerican.com
Governor Gavin Newsom’s quest to replace the U.S. Constitution continues, as California’s chief executive is sponsoring legislation calling for a federal constitutional convention to rewrite the Second Amendment.
Senate Joint Resolution 7 seeks “to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment relating to firearms.”
Based on the incorrect claim that “gun safety laws are proven to lessen the scourge of gun violence,” the measure specifically seeks to add an amendment that would change the Constitution in the following ways:
- Affirm that federal, state, and local governments may “adopt public safety regulations limiting aspects of firearms acquisition, possession, public carry, and use by individuals”;
- Affirm that such regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment “and the understanding that throughout American history private individuals have possessed firearms for home defense, hunting, and recreational purposes”;
- Impose universal background checks;
- Set the minimum age to purchase a firearm at 21;
- Impose a minimum waiting period for delivery of a firearm after purchase; and
- Ban “private possession of assault weapons and other weapons of war.”
The claim that stricter gun laws lead to less gun violence is contradicted by a report by ABC News that noted:
Given Newsom’s known enmity for the U.S. Constitution generally and the Second Amendment specifically, it’s remarkable that his proposals aren’t more radical.
And given that the Second Amendment to the Constitution is so clear in its prohibition on any governmental infringement on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, it’s sad that such proposals aren’t radical.
They are, of course, radical in the purest sense, but given that federal restrictions on the right of the people to keep and bear arms are so expansive and in such direct violation of the Second Amendment, even radical restrictions seem reasonable in this age.
There is no reasonable restriction on the right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it should make a person wonder why a government — an entity created by mankind solely for the purpose of protecting life, liberty, and property — would have any need to disarm the people. Putting the lack of authority to one side, something sinister would certainly motivate any attempt by anyone to disarm another person or group of people. If you think about it reasonably, if you’re being disarmed or prevented from purchasing weapons, there’s probably something being planned that the government knows you would use weapons to resist … if you still had them. That alone should motivate anyone to resist disarmament.read more