Self-serving or not, Newsom’s 28th Amendment is a threat to the rights of all

Last week, California Gov. Gavin Newsom garnered national attention by proposing his vision for a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Unsurprising given Newsom’s policy goals for the Golden State, the proposed amendment would advance Newsom’s gun control dreams nationwide. While it’s unlikely Newsom can gather the support necessary to make his dream a reality in the near-term, that doesn’t mean we should ignore the dangers of his narrative.

On June 8, Newsom issued a press release outlining his specific vision for a new constitutional amendment that he describes as “common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support.” The proposed amendment would write four key tenets of Newsom’s gun control religion into our federal system of government: (1) raising the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21; (2) mandating (so-called) “universal background checks”; (3) instituting a waiting period for all gun purchases; and (4) barring “civilian purchase of assault weapons.”

It would be exceedingly challenging today for Newsom to actually achieve his goal. Article V of the U.S. Constitution sets forth the procedure necessary to amend the Constitution. First, two-thirds of Congress or two-thirds of the states have to propose an amendment (with agreed upon language). Then, three fourths of states have to ratify that amendment for it to become effective. Given only 10 states and Washington D.C. have any form of ban on so-called “assault weapons” or any form of waiting period, while 27 states have enacted some iteration of free/constitutional/permitless carry, it is clear that there isn’t currently much appetite for Newsom’s particular brand of gun control across the country.

Setting that aside, Newsom’s rhetoric is still dangerous for a couple reasons. First, while Newsom’s campaign is, at face value, a poorly disguised political stunt and fundraising effort for his political ambitions, it continues to paint gun control as “popular” and those standing in its way as responsible for violence. Newsom quite literally called those opposing his proposed amendment “Merchants of Death.” This rhetoric continues to push gun control activists’ twisting of language to psychologically manipulate the public and advance the activists’ cause. It aims to shift public perception until enough people will assent to the authoritarian regulation of all individual’s natural rights.

Second, and to that point, Newsom’s proposed amendment carries with it the implication that, if enough people agree, the government should have the power to infringe on the People’s natural right to self-defense and to possess the tools necessary to effectuate that defense. The idea that the People’s rights can be put up to a decision of a popular vote is offensive and immoral. The entire purpose of our system of government was to protect the rights of the few from the many. Yet, today, we’ve strayed far from that original vision. Newsom’s proposed amendment is evidence of just that.

Not only is Newsom’s proposal an admission that he is losing his battle for civilian disarmament, and that he knows the Constitution and the Second Amendment stand in the way of his authoritarian utopia, but it also reveals just how far our Nation has strayed from its aspirations of individual liberty, choosing instead to grow the leviathan that is government.

Natural rights are not mere political talking points, nor are those who cherish them second class citizens, subject to the whimsy of polling results or political fads. The People should never weaken in their resolve to protect those rights that once one generation loses, future generations may never know.

Whether Newsom’s proposed amendment is likely or not in the immediate future, one thing remains constant—all those who cherish individual rights must treat each trespass exactly for what it is, a bridge to the next trespass.

Cody J. Wisniewski (@TheWizardofLawz) is a senior attorney for constitutional litigation with FPC Action Foundation where he regularly represents Firearms Policy Coalition.