Newsom proposes constitutional amendment to restrict gun rights

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/newsom-proposes-constitutional-amendment-restrict-gun-rights

The key take aways are he wants the following in the 28th amendment
• raise the age to purchase a fire arm to 21
• ban assault weapons
• universal background checks
• a waiting period to buy

he claims this won’t change the second but it does. Why? Because the second doesn’t give the government a right to ban semi auto guns, or stop adults from purchasing firearms. I also believe it does not allow for a universal background check.

In my opinion if someone isn’t responsible enough to handle a gun at 18 then they shouldn’t be responsible enough to vote.

 

Count the states needed to pass a constitutional amendment. Now count the states that have permitless or constitutional carry.

Its not going to pass.

 

Liberals hate the fact we have the right to keep and bear arms, and will do everything they can to limit the exercise of same in every way possible.
This is why we do not give an inch.

 

Kudos for someone finally trying to do it correctly. I wont be supporting any 'assault weapon' ban of course, but this is how to make it legit.

I wonder how they're going to make the constitutional distinction between police and the rest of us. Do the police get banned from using 'assault weapons'? Or will they just be inducting police into the military?

 

I think he just wants to keep a bunch of white women off of his lawn.

 

Virtue signalling. He knows a snowball has a better chance in hell.

 

Of course this will not go anywhere anytime soon.

It is at least proposing the correct path towards any meaningful gun regulation.

Give it 50 years.

 

Notice that these Democrats don't merely just want to raise the age to 21 only for "assault weapons"; they want it to include all guns.

They're trying to grab for the whole enchilada.

I think it's very revealing about what else they would want to do if they could.

 

California should take note of Fraser v BAFTE.

 

Many 9mm’s meet those standards as well.

 

To be fair, there is a school of thought that the 2nd Amendment should apply more against the federal government than the states.

The federal Appellate courts may be more open to regulations and some restrictions from the states.

 

Virtually all magazine fed semiautomatic weapons do, and any that doesn't now would as soon as someone 3D printed a single magazine for it that held 11 or more rounds. I wonder how long it would take the state to make those?

 

The USSC applied the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment to the states in McDonald.
It applies equally to both.
People have to lie to themselves to disagree.

 

Not according to tench Coxe. He claimed the state nor the federal government had a constitutional right to regulate against arms

 

Until Chicago v McDonald it did. Now there isn't a difference.

 

You mean, in 50 years, 18-20 year olds will gladly surrender their rights?

 

Guaranteed- Newsomes assault weapon ban amendment proposal will allow exceptions for Newsome and his friends (rich people, famous people, politicians) and their bodyguards.

...and still millions of people who don't fit the bill will call it 'progress.' I bet they even try to call it 'equality.' Just you watch.

 

That school of thought is wrong, so sayeth common sense, and more importantly so sayeth the USSC. And, because of the USSC's precedents on the issue, specifically Heller, Bruen, and some other more minor decisions, the Appellate Court's actions and hands are tied to follow, regardless of what they may be more open to. Now, for a time, they may in fact rule as you are suggesting, but once those cases reach the USSC, and they overturn those decisions based on their own prior precedent, it will only serve to cement and enhance those precedents, ultimately to the point that very little gun control will pass Constitutional muster. Things like AWBs and etc. are over and done, even if they're still breathing their last breaths.

 

If you are claiming it's "common sense", then you probably do not understand the argument on the other side.

 

That’s the way I look at it also. Besides buying a firearm, you can add to that if one isn’t responsible enough at 18 to drink, buy alcohol, then they aren’t responsible enough to vote.


On Newsom’s proposal, it isn’t going anywhere. It takes 2/3rds of the house to pass the amendment, another 2/3rds of the senate and then 3/4ths of the states to ratify it. This is nothing more than PR, a publicity stunt that Newsom knows himself isn’t going to fly or go nowhere. But he does get some valuable PR from it from the democratic party's base.

 

The argument on the other side doesn't matter - the 2nd was incorporated against the states in 2012.

 

2010

 

Poop!

 

This thread makes me so happy I retired in a state that has "Constitutional Carry" which allows any legal gun owner to carry open or concealed without any registration or permit requirements. We are also unencumbered by any "waiting periods", magazine capacity limitations, or any of the other unconstitutional demands so commonly encountered in blue states. Taking a cue from blue states, though, this state is now a "sanctuary" for the 2d amendment.

TEXAS!!! WHERE FREEDOM LIVES!!!

 

• Greasy Gavin admits that these gun control initiatives require a constitutional amendment rather than a Court willing to act as illegitimate constitutional convention. - Thank you, Greasy.
• Greasy Gavin wants the States to call a convention to draft constitutional amendments. I want the States to do so, as well. - Thank you, Greasy.