SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom has a good target, but the aim is off in his effort to amend the U.S. Constitution with a gun-control mandate.
California's liberal governor has absolutely no chance of getting a gun control amendment adopted. It's beyond the realm of political possibility — at least for the foreseeable future.
But that's OK. At the current rate of gun carnage across America — and with the firearms lobby's stubborn refusal to compromise on reasonable regulation — it's only a matter of time in this century before some 2nd Amendment tinkering occurs.
Newsom wants to get it rolling.
"If you don't start, it will never happen," he says.
Newsom's aim is off-line because he's trying to cement specific regulations into the Constitution.
His proposal gets into the nitty-gritty. It's as if the nation's founders in writing the 2nd Amendment's right to bear arms in 1789 had specified the maximum muzzle size of a blunderbuss or fire power of a musket.
Newsom wants his 28th amendment to unequivocally require four conditions for firearms ownership. The purchaser must be at least 21, undergo a "universal background check" and wait a "reasonable period" before picking up the gun from a seller. Also, no "assault weapons" could be sold to civilians.
Presumably assault weapons would include semiautomatic weapons with large-capacity magazines — the types already banned in California, a regulation being challenged in court by gun-rights advocates.
These firearms "serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short amount of time — weapons of war our nation's founders never foresaw," Newsom said in announcing his national crusade last week.
Agreed. But detailed gun restrictions should be left for Congress, state legislatures and local jurisdictions to decide.
Newsom's amendment would include a provision allowing our elected federal, state and local representatives to enact "common-sense gun safety regulations." But that's all it should do. Forget the specifics.
Newsom fears — as do many gun control advocates — that the current firearms-friendly Supreme Court will toss out strict regulations already adopted by California and some other blue states, ruling they violate the 2nd Amendment. So he wants to firmly implant the major regulations in the Constitution with a new amendment while still preserving the right to bear arms.
But UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, a constitutional scholar, notes that the gun restrictions Newsom worries about have not been found by the Supreme Court to violate the 2nd Amendment. At least yet.
So, he reasons, a new constitutional amendment is not needed. Congress could adopt the stiff regulations itself.
Of course, repeated efforts to pressure Congress into passing such legislation have failed miserably because of an inherent gun culture in much of the nation, particularly in rural areas.
"The governor ignores the key problem," Chemerinsky says. "It is the lack of political will for meaningful gun regulation in Congress and the legislatures. If laws cannot be adopted, a constitutional amendment is not going to happen."
There are two ways to adopt a constitutional amendment, both extremely difficult for a controversial topic such as firearms. Only one method has ever been used: Both houses of Congress propose an amendment on a two-thirds majority vote, and the measure is ratified by three-fourths of the Legislatures.
Newsom knows Congress would never do that. So he's proposing the untried way: Two-thirds of the states would call for a constitutional convention to be convened by Congress. The convention's proposed amendment then would need to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
"A terrible idea," Chemerinsky says.
The convention could run amok and tamper with lots of amendments, he fears.
"Liberals have opposed a constitutional convention for a balanced budget amendment for years based on the risk," the professor says. "Newsom is undercutting that argument."
UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who specializes in gun law, also says, "I don't like the idea of a constitutional convention. I wouldn't trust Americans to rewrite their Constitution right now. It could lead to a worse constitution than we have.
"About 40 states are very pro-gun. You're more likely to get an amendment to expand gun rights."
In fact, Winkler thinks Newsom's effort may have the opposite effect of expediting gun control.
"I think it's a distraction," he says. "It may convince gun owners that Democrats just want to take away their guns. It could make it harder to get things passed."
Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communication at USC and UC Berkeley, says Newsom's proposed amendment "has absolutely no chance whatsoever of happening."
But it's still pretty smart politics.
"When Newsom usually talks about national politics, he sounds very partisan, very divisive and very bitter. He looks like a liberal version of [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis. But on this one, he's onto an issue where most of the country agrees with him."
"He didn't make this proposal because he thought it could happen," Schnur says. "He made it to get attention. And it worked."
Sure. But if Newsom has the staying power to aggressively pursue this, it could generate more passion within the Democratic voter base to insist that their representatives enact meaningful gun control. For years, the passion has all been on the gun-rights side.
"People will demand that this gets done in state legislatures," insists Assemblyman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who will sponsor a California legislative resolution calling on Congress to convene a convention.
"It won't necessarily be what the politicians want, but what the people want."
That's wishful thinking. But the effort could be worthwhile.
That is, if Newsom discards the nitty gritty that too many gun owners would read as a threat to take away their 21st century muskets.
____
