Gov. Newsom’s 28th Amendment ‘Political Stunt’

“The Second Amendment is about America’s freedom: the freedom to protect oneself, family, home, and homeland,” District Judge Roger Benitez wrote in 2021 for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. “California’s assault weapon ban disrespects that freedom.”

District Judge Roger T. Benitez threw out California’s 32-year ban on assault weapons, while also clarifying the deliberate and incorrect use of the label “assault weapon.”

In the case of the AR-15, “AR” stands for “Armalite Rifle,” named after the company that developed it.

Judge Benitez reiterated the meaning of the Second Amendment and swatted down other courts’ attempts to justify gun laws:

The Second Amendment “elevates above all other interests the right of law abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home.” Heller, 554 U.S., at 635. The Supreme Court clearly holds that the Second Amendment protects guns commonly owned by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. At the same time, “the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms . . . that ‘have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.’” Id. at 622. And although the Supreme Court cautioned that the Second Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and carry “any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose,” Heller, 554 U.S., at 626, lower courts have often cited this proviso about extreme cases to justify gun laws in average contexts. There is no evidence that the Supreme Court intended that language to be a license to avoid its common sense holding in average contexts. Unfortunately, Heller’s acknowledgement of exceptions for gun laws at the extreme is in danger of swallowing Heller’s rule for the average case.”

In June, California Governor Gavin Newsom, who pretends he isn’t running for President, proposed a Constitutional Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to restrict gun national rights.

Reflecting the spirit of Judge Benitez’s message, Rick Travis, Director of Government Affairs for the California Rifle & Pistol Association told the Globe, “Newsom shows an astounding lack of leadership by once again attacking the law-abiding Gun owner rather than tackle the hard stuff such as crime control, the fentanyl crisis, homelessness and the multi year state budget deficits.”

Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (Yuba City) also weighed in on Gov. Newsom’s scheme to adopt the new gun control constitutional amendment, pointing out what a shameless headline chaser Newsom is:

“Newsom’s proposal is a poorly thought out, attention-seeking stunt from a governor desperate to distract from his ever-growing record of failure. If Newsom is this disinterested in leading California, he should let the Lieutenant Governor take over so he’ll be free to chase the national spotlight full-time.”

Over the weekend, “California Gov. Gavin Newsom went to deep red Idaho to campaign for President Joe Biden, as he insists he doesn’t have his own White House ambitions,” the Daily Mail reported.  Newsom doth protest. He’s already measured the drapes in the White House.

Then Newsom trolled Donald Trump making a claim that no one anywhere has even insinuated:

At the Idaho event, Newsom said that Trump – if reelected – might never give up power.

‘You think Trump, if he gets back into office, is not going to demand a third term?’ Newsome asked. ‘Give me a break.’

‘You think January 6 is the last we are going to see … Give me a break,’ the California governor added.

This is more evidence of Newsom hyperbole – and his willingness to say anything for headlines, which mainstream media reporters are all too happy to repeat without scrutiny.

The Daily Mail mentioned Newsom’s proposed Constitutional Amendment for more gun control: “Newsom’s political group, Campaign for Democracy, is pushing for a Constitutional amendment that would allow for certain gun control reforms.”

But that was all the Daily Mail said – again, no analysis or scrutiny.

To amend the U.S. Constitution would require an Article V. Convention, which requires 34 states to convene a convention. Newsom’s proposed constitutional amendment appears to be a careless political stunt when the gravity of it is considered.

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article Wednesday feigning concern by Democrats that Newsom’s Constitutional Amendment will trigger a Constitutional Convention: “members of his own party who worry it could open a Pandora’s box of prospective changes to the U.S. Constitution.”

But they interview Democrats who love the proposal but express some concern over a constitutional convention:

Twenty-nine state legislatures in the U.S. are controlled by Republicans, and in recent years Republicans have been the ones calling for a constitutional convention. That worries some Democrats like state Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, who fears Newsom’s proposal could unintentionally open the Constitution up to amendments from conservative states to undermine the rights of LGBT people, immigrants seeking U.S. citizenship and people trying to get an abortion or use birth control.

“It’s unclear whether there can be a convention limited to one topic,” Wiener said. “We need to make sure that we’re not going to inadvertently trigger a general constitutional convention, because that could go real bad real fast.”

The SFC contacted Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley’s law school, calling him “one of the country’s top constitutional scholars.” Chemerinsky said he thinks a constitutional convention is “very unlikely” but warned that it’s an untested and dangerous plan.

“I support everything Governor Newsom proposes, but think it is a bad idea to seek a constitutional convention,” he wrote. “I expect many California legislators feel the same way.”

What judicious law school dean says, “I support everything Governor Newsom proposes?”

“My guess is that this is simply a messaging and organizing strategy,” Rep. Jared Huffman, D-Marin, said about Newsom’s proposal, noting he supports all four gun control policy proposals in Newsolm’s constitutional amendment, but is worried about the mechanism Newsom wants to use.

Newsom claims his proposed Constitutional Amendment will “leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

Newsom uses words without conviction. This was his reaction to Judge Benitez’s ruling overturning California’s assault weapons ban:

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it “a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period.”

Overturning CA’s assault weapon ban and comparing an AR-15 to a SWISS ARMY KNIFE is a disgusting slap in the face to those who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

This is a direct threat to public safety and innocent Californians. We won’t stand for it. https://t.co/feL5BABTXa

— Gavin Newsom (@GavinNewsom) June 5, 2021

Gov. Newsom also called the judge a “wholly-owned subsidiary of the gun lobby and the National Rifle Association,” and said, “We need to call this federal judge out. He will continue to do damage. Mark my words.”

Judge Benitez noted that the California Legislature has not properly adjudicated their ban laws, and quoted former Gov. Pete Wilson’s 1998 priceless veto statement:

There are no assault weapon experiences of other states or cities recited. There are no public hearings described. There is one indication, however: Senate Bill 23 was said to be similar to Assembly Bill 2560, which was passed the previous year, but vetoed by California Governor Pete Wilson. Governor Wilson issued a statement with his veto criticizing AWCA’s prohibited-features approach and offered this analogy: “If this bill’s focus were high speed sports cars, it would first declare them ‘chariots of death’ and then criminalize possession of Ramblers equipped with racing stripes and wire wheels.”

Benitez continued, blasting the state and Attorney General:

“This case is not about extraordinary weapons lying at the outer limits of Second Amendment protection. The banned ‘assault weapons’ are not bazookas, howitzers, or machine guns. Those arms are dangerous and solely useful for military purposes,” his ruling said. “Instead, the firearms deemed ‘assault weapons’ are fairly ordinary, popular, modern.”

As an aside, the “assault weapon” epithet is a bit of a misnomer. These prohibited guns, like all guns, are dangerous weapons. However, these prohibited guns, like all guns, can be used for ill or for good. They could just as well be called “home defense rifles” or “anti-crime guns.”

Summing up the state’s stance, Judge Benitez said, “The State prefers a policy of residents not arming themselves with assault weapons, and for those who do, arresting residents.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom has signed laws to reduce sentence enhancements for the purpose of reducing prison sentences because of “extreme racial disparities.” He is emptying out California’s prisons. His budget even calls for emptying out four more prisons rather than funding them.

In January, Gov. Newsom said the Second Amendment is a “suicide pact,” in a bizarre interview with Norah O’Donnell of CBS Evening News following the tragic Monterey Park mass shooting.

Almost immediately following the tragic Monterey Park mass shooting Sunday, Gov. Newsom and California Democrats blamed “gun violence,” and immediately pivoted to the need for more gun control measures.

O’Donnell noted, “California has the strictest gun laws in the U.S.” which Judge Benitez has warned are nibbling around the edges of the 2nd Amendment.