Gov. Newsom’s Proposal to Restrict National Gun Rights, Parlayed Into State Resolution

Governor Gavin Newsom’s proposed constitutional amendment to restrict national gun rights was formally introduced as a joint resolution in the California Legislature late on Monday, with the ultimate aim of eventually bringing the proposal to the U.S. Congress for a national decision.

Newsom first proposed a 28th amendment to the U.S. Constitution in June by combining 4 major gun control measures together. Under his proposal, the new amendment would have the following:

• Raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21;
• Mandating universal background checks to prevent truly dangerous people from purchasing a gun that could be used in a crime;
• Instituting a reasonable waiting period for all gun purchases; and
• Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons that 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.

The Governor said in June that his proposal was in response to the high number of firearms-related deaths that occur in the U.S. each year, as well as many high-profile mass-killing incidents that involved assault weapons. In his announcement, he also said that his proposed  constitutional protections and gun safety measures were something that “Democrats, Republicans, independent voters, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – including universal background checks, raising the firearm purchase age to 21, instituting a firearm purchase waiting period, and barring the civilian purchase of assault weapons.”

However, rather than the overwhelming support he had expected, reaction was more mixed. Several lawmakers, including Senator Aisha Wahab (D-Hayward) came out in support of the proposal, echoing Newsom’s words of it being over public safety.

“A man of action, Governor Gavin Newsom has the backbone to actually do something about the gun fetish culture around weapons of war, and tackle the relentless problem of gun violence and mass shootings,” said Senator Wahab in a statement. “As someone impacted by gun violence, I have an obligation to elevate the voices of victims and those of us left behind in the wake of tragedy.”

Many groups and lawmakers, claimed by Newsom to be in support of what his proposal had outlined, also came out opposed to the proposed amendment. Specifically, they highlighted that it infringed upon the right to self-defense, would punish the gun owner rather than go after the bigger issue of crime control, pointed out that it would likely lead to an overall drop in safety rather than improve it, and called out the Governor himself for it simply being an attention seeking plan at a time when speculation for a presidential run was high and when previous public safety measures in the state had failed.

Rick Travis, Director of Government Affairs for the California Rifle & Pistol Association, told the Globe in June that “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.”

Opposition against the proposed amendment has stayed strong in the past two months, with more and more outlets calling it a ‘political stunt‘. Despite the growing opposition, as well as several court rulings this year that struck down parts of California’s strict gun laws, Newsom went ahead with his proposal on Monday by bringing it up to the state Legislature.

Senate Joint Resolution 7, also known as the Right to Safety Resolution, was introduced to the Legislature by Senator Wahab and Assemblyman Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles) on Monday. The Resolution officially states that “The measure would apply to the United States Congress to call a constitutional convention under Article V of the Constitution of the United States for the purpose of proposing a constitutional amendment relating to firearms”, followed by the four main points given by Newsom.”

SJR 7 further says that around 49,000 Americans died in 2021 as a result of gun violence, that firearms are the leading cause of death for children under 18 years of age in the United States, and claims that gun restrictions in California have cut their state gun death rate in half since the early 90s and is currently 39 % lower than the national average.

“In the time it will take to pass our Right to Safety Resolution calling for a constitutional convention, more Americans will lose their lives to gun violence than were killed on September 11,” said Governor Newsom in a statement. “How many more lives must be lost before we act? In California, with the help of the Legislature, we are providing a path to a safer America.”

Newsom and the proposed amendment

Assemblyman Sawyer-Jones also added, “As Chair of the Assembly’s Public Safety Committee, I have worked on solid gun reform policies that Californians overwhelmingly support only to see Republican activist judges overturn the will of the people. The Right to Safety proposal activates a real national discussion on gun violence and gives all Americans a voice in determining whether we continue down a road that sees innocent Americans slaughtered by weapons of war, or whether we choose sensible gun control measures without infringing upon the Second Amendment.”

Despite that support, political experts told the Globe on Tuesday that SJR 7 was still a political stunt for Newsom, and that if he had been serious, he would have handled it a different way.

“Newsom right now is trying to appear to be a presidential as possible for either a 2024 or 2028 run at the White House,” said Washington-based candidate advisor Erica Taylor to the Globe. “He does have a national profile, which is good for him. He’s one of the few Governors that a lot of people from other states can name, and he has had a lot of national interviews and even might have an unprecedented debate with Florida Governor Ron DeSantis soon.”

“But California under his watch hasn’t fared well. He has had a lot of failed policies and initiatives during his tenure, or at the very least, more failures than victories. Homelessness is still high, rent there is still out of control, water problems persist. He has gotten some positives from green energy initiatives, but even that has been trying because of statewide electrical issues last year. His electric car endeavors could work long-term too, but all you need is a major electrical crisis and that could hurt him. And there are many other issues I’m not even mentioning right now, although I’m sure your readers know exactly what they are.”

“This amendment thing, it is pretty obvious to be a ploy. They are kind of bringing about a new amendment up for a national debate the right way, but they are also doing it in the most public way possible for attention. Look at all previous amendments, none were really brought forward quite like this. The last successful amendment actually got started pretty quietly when a college kid in Texas found that a proposed amendment from the late 1700’s was still active. They usually only get this kind of attention when it is time for ratification, like how the Equal Rights Amendment was everywhere in the 70’s.”

“This is about bringing about the issue of gun violence and spinning this into a positive for Newsom before he heads off into other political things. You put out a proposed amendment like this for attention. You don’t put out a press release on it after every little thing you do with it. Even those behind ERA and the 26th Amendment decades ago knew that.”

More on the proposed amendments status in the Legislature is due soon.