The 28th Amendment will permanently enshrine four broadly supported gun safety principles into the U.S. Constitution:

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.

Additionally, the 28th Amendment will affirm Congress, states, and local governments can enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations that save lives.

The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”

featureless wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:04 am I like the part that says congress and states can enact whatever other common sense regulations they can dream up. That ain't a right. California would find it common sense to just ban everything.

YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:55 am There is a ratified 28th Amendment already, although states that once ratified it now want to take back their ratification. It's called the Equal Rights Amendment and I don't understand why it is not ALREADY considered part of the Constitution.

featureless wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:27 am Yes, Newsom is proposing the 28th Amendment to gut the 2nd Amendment. Got to ban those assault weapons somehow. Blood. In. The. Streets.

For fucks sake.

cooper wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:44 pm On the one hand, one could say at least he's being honest. I've often told my (many) anti-gun friends and family that if you want guns gone you gotta change The Constitution. But the truth is, it's really just dishonest pandering and fundraising, knowing he can't get it done. Which will lead to more fundraising.

cooper wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:44 pm On the one hand, one could say at least he's being honest. I've often told my (many) anti-gun friends and family that if you want guns gone you gotta change The Constitution. But the truth is, it's really just dishonest pandering and fundraising, knowing he can't get it done. Which will lead to more fundraising.

For some, California governor Gavin Newsom’s proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to enable stronger gun regulation burnishes his image as a bold progressive unafraid to take on Red America. For others, it’s another empty gesture from a political showboat. People in both camps, however, can probably agree that this proposal is not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Surely understanding this, Newsom chose to unveil the idea not in some tough venue featuring political and legal experts, but on the Today Show.

But the proposed means for securing this menu of gun-safety measures is pure fantasy. There’s a reason the last amendment (the 27th, a wildly popular idea to make members of Congress face voters before any pay raise they authorize for themselves is actually disbursed) was finally ratified in 1992, after it had been kicking around since 1789. That’s how hard it is to amend the U.S. Constitution to do anything remotely controversial. Sensibly enough, Newsom wants to avoid going to Congress for his 28th Amendment, where a two-thirds vote in both chambers would be required. Not so sensibly, he plans instead to pursue a state-initiated constitutional convention to propose and approve the amendment. That requires a “call” from 33 states, which is quite a few more than the number (19) currently controlled by Newsom’s Democratic Party.

This has never, ever happened in the history of the republic, in part out of fear that once a constitutional convention is formed, it will prove impossible to limit the amendments it produces to the original scheme. If that’s not enough grounds for pessimism, there’s also this: Whether constitutional amendments are proposed by Congress or by a state-called convention, they must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (that would be 38 states). That’s why six amendments approved by Congress (including the Equal Rights Amendment) were never fully ratified.

featureless wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:28 am Gun stuff aside, I am fundamentally opposed to the use of the constitution to limit the rights of the people. It goes right along with a proposal that the 1A is great but subject to a background check, waiting period and banning of, say, Judaism. Oh and whatever other regulations states come up with are cool, too. Fuck that noise. Government has plenty of power already.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/liberal-g ... nna-happen

cooper wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 11:29 am Crap -- I just gave a click to FoxNews.

The Golden State has one of the lowest rates of firearm mortality in the country, according to 2021 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same CDC data showed New Hampshire — which received an F score on its gun laws from the pro-gun control Giffords Law Center — has an even lower firearm mortality rate than California.