Gavin Newsom, California governor, calls for U.S. constitutional amendment on gun control

California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday called for the country to adopt an amendment to the Constitution that would challenge the core of the Second Amendment by writing new gun controls into the government’s founding document.

He said California will lead the way in proposing a new constitutional convention to propose the amendment.

Mr. Newsom said his proposal would create a national minimum age of 21 for purchasing a firearm, would mandate “universal” background checks for gun sales, create a waiting period between purchase and pickup, and ban civilian purchases of “assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time.”

“Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” Mr. Newsom said in a statement. “The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

Critics chortled at that last claim, saying Mr. Newsom’s proposal eviscerates the Second Amendment.

“If he truly respected this nation’s tradition of private gun ownership, he wouldn’t attack it by pushing this nonsense,” said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Mr. Newsom’s plan use to an Article V convention — named after the section of the Constitution governing amendments — is also striking because the idea has usually been more popular among conservatives, and anathema to liberal groups.

“I am surprised to see this,” said Mark Meckler, president of Convention of States Action, which wants to see a convention to adopt conservative ideas such as term limits and a balanced budget amendment. “The left has absolutely been united against the use of an Article V convention. I’m going to be really curious how they react to this.”

Mr. Newsom’s plan is a long shot. It’s been more than 50 years since a new amendment was proposed and ratified.

But in suggesting the need for a change to the constitution, Mr. Newsom appears to be conceding that gun control advocates have lost the legal momentum.

The Supreme Court, in a series of decisions, has ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to obtain and possess firearms. Those decisions say states, or Congress, can adopt some gun controls, but in a major ruling last year the high court said those restrictions must be ones that would have rung true at the time the Second Amendment was adopted.

That ruling struck down a New York law that had limited gun owners’ ability to obtain a concealed-carry permit.

In the wake of that decision, and fueled by a spate of high-profile shootings, Democrat-dominated states have rushed to pass new gun controls. Often, however, they’ve run up against judges who say they’ve gone too far.

A constitutional amendment would reset the debate and reopen avenues for gun control that appear to be off-limits under the court’s current precedent.

For example, a federal judge last month ruled unconstitutional a law banning gun sales to people under 21 years of age — one of the features that Mr. Newsom’s proposal would enshrine.

Courts are also wrestling with the legality of a broad “assault weapons” ban.

Mr. Newsom said that his amendment, in addition to his four specific proposals, would also grant Congress, states and localities the leeway to adopt other “common-sense gun safety regulations.”

In calling for a constitutional convention, Mr. Newsom is harnessing a tactic that has been a favorite of conservatives, who for years have been trying to organize a convention to propose a balanced budget amendment.

But the convention route has never been tried, and is fraught with tricky questions about what the proceedings would look like, and whether they could be restricted to a single issue.

All 27 current amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by Congress.

To call a convention would take the assent of two-thirds of the states, or 34 states.

Once a convention is convened, there are competing legal theories on whether it could be limited to a single purpose or whether the delegates could stray into any areas they wanted — similar to the 1787 convention that wrote the Constitution itself.

Indeed, worries of a “runaway convention” are a key reason liberal groups have opposed using the tool, with heavyweights like the AFL-CIO, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the League of Women Voters and Common Cause all on record calling a convention a dangerous idea.

Viki Harrison, director of constitutional convention programs at Common Cause, said her organization supports efforts to curb gun violence, but she said calling a convention “could put all of our civil rights up for grabs.”

“A constitutional convention is not the way to go and could actually make reducing gun violence worse at the end of the day because gun interests could re-write the constitution,” she told The Washington Times. “With no rules in place, and many convention proponents advocating for the same number of delegates per state, gun control would not be the topic taken up at a convention.”

Mr. Meckler dismissed worries about a runaway convention, saying he’s convinced proceedings can be kept focused on the issues at hand.

His proposal, which includes term limits, a balanced budget and restraints on the scope of congressional action, has support from roughly 20 states.

A separate balanced budget amendment proposal has support from roughly 30 states.

Once an amendment is proposed, either by a convention or Congress, it takes three-fourths of the states to ratify it.

Mr. Meckler said it’s unthinkable that Mr. Newsom’s proposal could get backing from two-thirds of states, given that Democrats have total control of legislatures in just 19 states, and more than half of states have permitless carrying as part of their constitutions.

“As usual, Gavin Newsom doesn’t live in the real world,” he said. “it takes 34 states to get to a convention. I would literally put a million dollars on the line and ask him what 34 states?”

Given that, and liberal groups’ opposition, Mr. Meckler wondered at Mr. Newsom’s motive for turning to a convention.

He said it’s possible the governor wasn’t aware of left-wing skepticism, but he also said Mr. Newsom may be trying a “false flag” operation to poison the idea of a convention among conservatives.

“It is entirely plausible they see the momentum and say ‘Hey, we need to strike against this,’” Mr Meckler said.