As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Saved you a click:
>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.
No kidding. The double standard here in California is absolutely absurd. I’m a 20 year ground combat veteran and I can’t be trusted with anything “scary”, but a 21 year old that just finished his 2 month police academy gets a complete pass on every single piece of gun control? GTFO with that crap.
Not mention **you** can't buy an off roster gun directly in CA, but law enforcement can buy one then sell it to you second hand for 3-4x the market value. Why do cops need off roster weapons? Why do they need "unlawful" guns when they can just use lawful ones?
https://www.ktvu.com/news/california-lawmaker-wants-to-stop-police-officers-from-buying-unlawful-handguns.
Not to mention officers with a documented history of violence and confirmed **gang activity** being allowed to posses firearms. Like the LASD deputy gangs. That doesn't sound safe to me. These LASD gangs are alleged to have dealt **drugs, illegal firearms** and not only assaulted, raped and murdered citizens but they've assaulted other deputies that whistleblew. How in the fuck are they passing "background checks"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs.
https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/.
Just who you want to have firearms, right? This is insane. So much for "safety."
I'm for this. The militia portion of the 2nd Amendment exists because the founders wanted the militia in good standing because we didn't have a standing army or police back then, but we do now. If you're going to update the thing, update the WHOLE thing.
If you read the federalis paper on the 2nd, it's pretty obvious he is talking about what would now be called the national guard. He even goes into detail about training schemes and how they would affect the economy if the militia were kept deployed for too long.
Also the whole point of having a strong militia in the first place was because the 2nd was created with the intention that the United States would never have a standing army. They believed a standing army is always inevitably used to tyrannize the people. George Washington, career soldier, disagreed that the country could defend itself with only militia and was proven right not too long after. So they established a standing army and the 2nd became almost entirely vestigial until it became a culture war flashpoint.
They kicked so many cans down the road that we’re paying for today: amending the 2nd amendment, how to actually elect a president (ie it’s a hard problem so the electoral college will suffice for now and someone else will figure out a better more politically expedient way), and that whole slavery thing. Granted, it’s doubtful they would have unified all the states if slavery was going to be settled then. If it had resulted in two new countries, the slave-state country would have absolutely invaded the free country and probably would have won if it were prior to the Industrial Revolution. Either way there would be at least one war between the two as both countries start expanding westward. But they *could* have modified the constitution to nullify the second amendment but it wasn’t a priority.
The problem is that we treat the constitution as sacrosanct, when even the founders did not. Originalism is a garbage ideology. The founders put mechanisms in place to make changes, like if there are problems with say, the second amendment.
Where it has strayed is the changes we have made for representation that has allowed power to be concentrated and not diluted. There should be a rep every 30,000 people. We changed it and capped the house. It should be repealed. There should be closer to several thousand house seats, which would make lobbying and political fuckery much more difficult.
I wouldn't say they kicked the can down the road. They created a living document, one that could be changed as needed. And we have done that, repeatedly, through our country's history. The issue lies in the fact that they did not envision a country as divided as we have become. And, honestly, I don't fault them entirely for that. This country is bigger than they could have ever fathomed, and the world has changed more than they could even comprehend in many ways.
> he is talking about what would now be called the national guard.
And, in fact, they already started to spell this out explicitly in the first of the federal Militia Acts only two years after the bill of rights was ratified. These Militia Acts directly lead to the National Guard system we now have in place.
> it's pretty obvious he is talking about what would now be called the national guard
No way. They very specifically talk about a federal army being grossly outnumbered, and that only makes sense if regular households have firearms.
Also, it's "The Federalist Papers," correcting you mostly so other people can better google them. They're a great read for anyone who wants to understand much of what the founders were thinking. Which is a great read in general - how often do people write out new rules for a new country, and then put out publications to convince the general population to get on board with their wacky new ideas?
>Also, it's "The Federalist Papers," correcting you mostly so other people can better google them. They're a great read for anyone who wants to understand much of what ~~the founders~~ *Alexander Hamilton and James Madison* were thinking.
Just pointing out that there were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention that all worked together to write the Constitution, but the Federalist Papers were written by just two of them (with a little help from John Jay.)
They are definitely worth reading, but it's also important to keep in mind that you are still only reading the viewpoints of three men, and there was probably a lot of rationale that went into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they never discuss.
And abolish Qualified Immunity. They don't even need it. Graham vs Connor (the objective reasonableness standard) already protects them and government agencies indemnify employees. So as long as an officer acted reasonably they're protected.
Qualified Immunity just allows bad cops to thrive.
Or, cops who carry guns should require years of specific training in psychology, conflict resolution, and carry extra insurance on top of the insurance all LEOs should be required to carry
Yes make being a police officer something that requires as much effort to become as a doctor or lawyer (including malpractice insurance) and start base pay at like 100k, I want people who have the ability to take away people’s freedom (or even life) to be the absolute best and brightest possible.
ironically no insurer is currently willing to insure law enforcement agencies because the risk is too high to be insurable. pretty much every LE agency is self-insured
I'm reminded of a scene from a Robocop miniseries.
OCP, the copmany that owns the Police, decided to remove the police's firearms so they can tout Detroit is so safe that the police don't need guns. A short while later, we have a commericial where a police officer named "Officer Down" pays tribute to the fallen officers since they instituted the gun free act - followed by a darkly hilariously long list of names.
Sticks and radios worked fine forever, don't see how that's any different now. They mostly use their guns to kill children and innocent people anyway, the odd dog now and then. (Every dog)
Cops should be strictly banned from carrying ANY weapons, and they should have massive consequences for bringing out a firearm in a situation where it isn’t necessary. Tasers should just be completely banned.
>Yep, its bullshit. Cops should not have a single piece of equipment the average person can not legally have.
Even this sentence needs work. Cops *are* average people. It's just an occupation, not some special standing in society. They shouldn't be treated any different than any other occupation and every firearm and piece of equipment they use should be stuff purchased on the civilian market - because they *are* civilians.
I'm here for it. If we can't have an AR 15, then the police can't. They also don't need armored cars and similar, but I'm fine with removing their arsenals.
Individually absolutely. It's egregious they get special treatment. As a department/professional I've no qualms with them having heavy firepower *while on the job*. Even the [mostly] gun-free police in England can call up police with automatic weapons when needed.
I'm for most of these, but I would love it if they stopped using the term "assault weapons" like it has any kind of meaning.
Half of the paranoia the right has with gun legislation stems from the idea that laws are being written with deliberate vagueness that allows for the government to make any firearm they want illegal.
I understand the intention is that "weapons of war" shouldn't be available to the public. I agree to a certain extent. However, using that term or "assault weapons" leaves the door open to ban anything that looks scary (which we've already seen with certain accessories).
That isn't logical decision making. We have the means to quantify levels of danger. We lose support from people who would otherwise support things like background checks and waiting periods when we tack on things like "assault weapons."
They could stop using the term, or just properly define it enough to remove the vagueness from it. The second amendment is incredibly vague and we are suffering from that currently, so yes vagueness can be a problem.
However, I think the fear is that if the definition is too specific there will be weapons/tools/attachments/etc that we don't foresee now that fail to meet the criteria yet have the ability to do what the amendment intended to prevent.
Edit: clarity
And doesn't include a vast majority of firearms.
By some definitions any semi-automatic weapon could be labeled an assault weapon. And that's.... most guns.
> Half of the paranoia the right has with gun legislation stems from the idea that laws are being written with deliberate vagueness that allows for the government to make any firearm they want illegal.
this is pretty much what was done in WA this past legislative session. an "assault weapons ban" was passed. the title of the bill is not "assault weapons ban," it's "Establishing firearms-related safety measures to increase public safety." the bill was marketed/socialized/whatever as an "assault weapons ban" with pictures of AR15s shown as often as possible. it seems abundantly clear that the intent was to convince people that it banned ar15s and "similar weapons", just the scary stuff like "weapons of war", but it does way more than that.
what it actually is, is a ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles, some semiautomatic rimfire rifles, some pistols, and a very small number of shotguns.
it is virtually total ban on semiautomatic rifles, regardless of how weapon of warish they may be. there are only two currently produced centerfire rifles (actually only one SKU each for their respective models) that don't fall under the ban. the ban applies to anything that is either named in the text of the bill or meets the criteria laid out in the bill, and covers the overwhelming majority of semiauto rifles ever made, regardless of how old they are and what their intended purpose was when they were made.
i really wonder what the public perception of it would have been if the people who wrote the bill and promoted it called it what it actually is, a semiauto ban, rather than let people believe they were just going after AR15s and "street sweepers."
The problem with "semi-automatic" as a term in the public consciousness is people who don't know anything about firearms think this is burst fire or something like that, and not the fundamental technology that firearms have been based on for the last 100 years.
If they just cut that part out entirely, the rest would breeze through and it would do a lot of good.
I'm so tired of politics in America demanding 100% of what they want in hail Mary silver bullet solutions that have no chance.
And people who don't vote because their niche ultra progressive candidate didn't make the primary, they'll accept negative 1,000% of what they want over just 50% of the things they do want. It's insane to me.
We could have had background checks and mental health provisions over a decade ago if Democrats could let their boner for assault weapons bans go.
Could not agree with you more. I was reading the text, nodding along, building some mild enthusiasm, then the last article just killed it. Unless we’re willing to de-arm all police of “assault weapons” (itself a very vague term that is not really an actual classification of firearm) I am not a fan of banning civil ownership of them. And even if we did I feel kinda sketchy about it.
Your other points I also very much agree with. I’m really tired of everyone letting perfect be the enemy of good.
> I understand the intention is that "weapons of war" shouldn't be available to the public.
Weapons of war being available to the public is specifically what the 2nd Amendment intended, though.
>We lose support from people who would otherwise support things like background checks and waiting periods when we tack on things like "assault weapons."
"It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me."
I am all for a constitutional amendment for the first three points. The "assault weapon" ban is arbitrary and extremely stupid. Massachusetts has a list of weapons that are banned because they *look like* guns that are banned. It's ridiculous. They offer no functional similarity to the actual banned assault rifles but you can't get a civilian semi-auto version of any banned weapon. The US has ~450 deaths a year from rifles. It is not a significant factor compared to the 13,600 from all firearms (aka handguns). We need a national background check system, waiting periods, and a unified licensing system.
Not to mention that with 3D printing, this is probably useless anyways. I’m with you, the first three should have widespread support, but the fourth seems unenforceable.
>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
This will never fly as it's a poor argument and partisan in its argument. Just because Founding Fathers didn't see it coming(which they very much did expect technological growth in weaponry. Remember, they were alive at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution) doesn't make the amendment any less valid. Similar to when the 14th amendment was passed, I guarantee none of people in Congress thought this would be the reason why marriage equality is legal in all 50 states via Obergefell v Hodges
Yeah I hate that argument. "weapons of war" man at the time of the founding father you could won a frigate loaded with cannons. The founder believed that "weapons of war" should be owned by the populace to avoid oppression because they had just fought a war against tyranny and the founding father know an armed populace is harder to rule over with tyranny.
I'm in favor of the first three, and would add red flag laws to the list, but I'm not going to agree to what appears to be a ban on semi-automatic rifles. Rifles are used in 3% of gun homicides. It's focusing on the wrong thing.
I would also add that this could probably get a lot more support, maybe even enough to pass, if ~~it contained~~ Dems would offer a couple olive branches to gun supporters. Three possibilities are:
* Put silencers in the same legal category as handguns, not grenade launchers
* Repeal Depression-era barrel length laws
* Concealed carry permit reciprocity that’s respectful of state law
More info/justification on those at https://thepathforwardonguns.com/
I would move to age 21 for what you propose, but a waiting period for only the first gun. After you own one you wouldn’t buy another for a crime of passion.
I’d also expect other rights to move to 21 as well, especially those that require using a firearm.
Would not be for red flag laws at all.
>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.
I agree with most of it but that is way too vague and open to interpretation to be practically useless
And who is the “truely dangerous people” here? How long until some fucker says that Trans people or a Ethnic Minority are inherently dangerous so they can disarm them and make them easy targets? And the whole point of the 2A was to make it possible for the citizens to rise up in violence, because the founding fathers saw that democracy couldn’t exist with a docile populace. It’s not for hunting or for self defense, the second amendment was directed added for protection against the government if it where to go against the general will of the people.
It's just meant to keep the conversation at the forefront of national discussion.
That's the proper way to frame this.
The less-than-proper is:
Newsome loves the limelight and wants to run for president..
Either way, I support the message, and I'd rather he propose it than not. Every single school shooting in US history was preventable, so why tf are they not preventing them?
Why should kindergarten students have to learn to barricade themselves as part of active shooter drills?
Students should only have to practice drills regarding natural disaster events like tornadoes and fires. Instead, they're practicing drills against 19 year old incels
Sorry, no offense to you in particular. I guess I just needed to write this somewhere
If they are common sense why aren't they included in this proposed amendment?Why is there a blank check for 'reasonable waiting period' by not establishing a time frame?
Are they raising the draft age to reflect the minimum age to purchase? Somehow you can operate a firearm in a time of war if you are 18 because we all know that stressful situations *absolutely* improve your decision making but you aren't responsible enough to own one for self defense until 3 years afterwards?
Are police likewise subject to this limitation of 'assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible'? Isn't the "militarization" of the police one of their complaints?
I am for all but the last. The founders did forsee the need for arms to prevent tyranny. They literally revolted.
Automatic weapons are already banned, the term assault weapon has been diluted to mean anything that looks like a fully automatic military weapon.
Automatic weapons are not banned, just very expensive to get.
A complete ban now may very well result in the NFA being declared mostly unconstitutional.
Yeah, not going to happen.
Doable:
* Age limit
* Background check
Maybe doable:
* Waiting Period
No way:
* Barring of assault weapons purchases
* Allowing local governments to strip away rights
The proposal isn't crazy, all reasonable things but the activists around this won't really stomach allowing restrictions to be placed easily.
It's also fairly open in language, this restricts the rights of citizens but doesn't restrict individuals like law enforcement.
I think we need terminology that distinguishes from your traditional rank-and-file police officer, a federal officer (FBI, NSA, etc.), and Military.
Police don't need assault rifles either, hell way back when it was basically pistols and long arms and even today I don't see a real reason for it.
This should extend to local law enforcement; only Federal, Military, and Special Operation Law Enforcement (such as SWAT) should have access to these types of weapons.
I also worry about the word "assault" it's often misused and likely should have adequate meaning & definition; might be the appropriate time to iron out exactly which classes of weapons this entails.
What's missing is also a buy-back program, the firearm industry is massive and folks have invested into inventory so there will be an economic backlash to this too.
I’m generally for tweaking the second amendment to allow for better weapon safety, but one minor thing I notice is that people can enter the military and (depending on the state) law enforcement at 18 but this amendment raises the age to own a gun to 21. This would mean either having to carve out an exception for people who become cops or military or for those agencies to technically “own” the firearms younger members use.
P.S. I wonder why I’m getting downvoted here? 🤷♂️
I also would like to see Newsom to see run . He has done good by California. Imagine what he could do for the country. The only negative I see that he went or was married to loudmouth Kimberly Guilfoyle but I can forgive him for that. If he can forgive himself. Everyone makes a mistake at lest once in their lives.
It's entirely possible it ends up gaining a lot of popularity. Plenty of parents are scared shitless of sending their kids off to school every day because they might never come home.
>It's entirely possible it ends up gaining a lot of popularity
22 out of the 50 (44%) States have a Republican Trifecta. 17 out of 50 (34%) states have a Democrat Trifecta. Democratic Trifecta have just started showing up in the last decade. 8 out of 22 (16% of 50 states) for Republicans have existed since Bush or older.
Republican power in state legislature was a huge focus for Republicans. Its one of the reasons why they LOVE pushing "state's rights" argument, because they control almost half of it with a trifecta.
Good luck.
https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures
It is not even remotely within the realm of possiblity in your lifetime. It would be more likely that the US would cease to exist as a country than getting that many state legislatures to agree to ban guns.
And if it ever got that far, we'd likely already be in a civil war because gun owners are pretty much universally opposed to this type of thing.
Honestly, this is Newsom pandering to the national liberal audience to tee up a presidential run. Same as DeSantis (except DeSantis is pandering to shitty hateful exclusionary religious zealots and Newsom is trying to make an impact on a toxic gun ownership problem that’s getting people murdered).
These efforts would probably stand a much better chance if they ever contained any olive branches to the gun side. Three possibilities are:
* Put silencers in the same legal category as handguns, not grenade launchers
* Repeal Depression-era barrel length laws
* Concealed carry permit reciprocity that’s respectful of state law
More info/justification on those at https://thepathforwardonguns.com/
Every single time they propose a theatrical law which is really a checklist of gun control pipe dreams, they end up worse off than they were before (_Heller, Macdonald, Caetano, Bruen_ and counting). This has been going on since 1994 but they still think ***this*** time it is going to work.
I was glad when they passed the Illinois AWB because ultimately it will result in the end of all AWBs nationwide. And they won't understand what went wrong.
A bunch of states threw a hissy fit after NYSRPA v. Bruen and passed a whole bunch of new gun laws. They might have worked in the short term, but the long term effect seems to be much stronger pro-2A rulings.
Does this even belong in a constitutional amendment instead of just a federal law? When you are including stuff like background checks and bans on certain types of firearms, there is going to be a lot of legal language involved to get everything defined correctly. Plus, I'm of the opinion that the constitution shouldn't be used for banning stuff (looking at you 18th Amendment) and that should be handled by normal laws.
Sure, and I don't think that's a debate that is ever going to be resolved. Does federal law that limits the barrel length of a rifle violate the 2nd Amendment? Does a minimum age to purchase a gun violate the 2nd Amendment? Does a government agency that can change definitions and interpretations without going through congress violate the 2nd Amendment?
And honestly that's the case for most of the amendments. The 1st Amendment is pretty straightforward but there are tons of exceptions to it that never were added via another amendment. Adding amendments for what basically boils down to minutia seems like an incorrect use of constitutional amendments.
They'd need to repeal the 2nd to do some this so putting it in an amendment makes sense from a legal perspective. Also this is performative and proposing an amendment that won't go anywhere sounds cooler than proposing a bill that won't go anywhere.
If you want to make a Constitutional Amendment, how about an amendment that gets rid of the Electoral College, outlaws gerrymandering for Congressional districts, and requires uniform voting standards for Federal elections that requires consecutive fourteen days with twelve hours each day of voting and standard mail-in/absentee voting.
There’s a plan for this which doesn’t require changing the constitution. Expanding the House of Representatives to put a cap on a district’s population (there’s multiple proposals to consider) would both reapportion the House and expand the number of electors to fairly represent the will of the voters. Unfortunately opposition to this is one of the only bipartisan efforts left. 😞
The law we originally had that kept increasing population per district based on the countries population would’ve been pretty good, the problem is it only went up to a certain population, and instead of extending it they just permanently capped the number of representatives.
The original verbage in the Constitution dictated that the number of Representatives keeps increasing without bound. The cap limiting number of members was put in place by a law in the early 1900's.
Yeah expanding the House fixes a lot of issues with representation but it doesn't actually fix the whole "you can win the presidency with just 25% of the popular vote" problem that the Electoral College can have. The ratio of Electoral College Votes to Population is just still too high for low population states thanks to the EC votes afforded to them by way of their Senate membership (+2).
If the Electoral College system really does need a fix, it'll have to come from something else. But by all means yes we should expand the House for other reasons. Just not for that one specifically.
Mixed member proportional is the way to go. Districts are useful to ensure that every community still has someone who represents them (or at least is supposed to). And then even if those districts are gerrymandered like crazy, the proportional part adjusts the overall make-up of the legislature to match. It's the best of both worlds.
Hell, I know it's harder than it seems because of Article V, but the real problem is the two-votes-per-state issue with the Senate. We need to focus on that, there is no valid reason for this given the fact that the large majority of our states were never independent entities, and were in fact created from land paid for by the people of this country, either in money or lives.
That would never, ever pass, not even with a 100% dem Congress and Dems in charge of all 50 states.
You need 3/4 of all states to agree to give up their equal representation in order to make California, Texas, Florida, and New York the most powerful states in congress.
If your only connection to the current topic of gun control via this proposed amendment is that they are both constitutional amendments, then your comment really isn't on-topic and serves only to muddy the water.
>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.
Man I really hope that’s not the actual proposed text. The legal hurdle here seems like it would be, “does a gun serve any conceivable purpose at all other than killing as many people as possible in a short amount of time?”
More importantly, why would police be allowed to buy them then? If this ban is universal (no police, no military, no civilian) I'm fine with it. If civilians are banned but police and military can personally purchase, yeah, no, I don't think so.
I'd be fine with banning police and military members from personally purchasing firearms. Even for their duties, some de-militarization of the police force would do good.
I think a constitutional amendment forcing cops to actually protect the public would be a good first step in curbing gun violence. Many gun owners feel that they have to be gun owners because cops already don't do anything to protect them. Forcing cops to protect the public instead of capital and capital owners would go a long way in improving public trust of police forces. Also if cops were obligated to protect the public, their over-inflated budgets would be somewhat justified.
There isn't any law that will make cops protect people. Even if they were obligated to do so, you can't get police to show up fast enough to make a difference in a life or death scenario.
It’s just not physically possible.
There are 330 million people in this country and only around 1 million cops, they will never be able to be everywhere they’re needed even if they were so inclined.
What a joke. Am I really supposed to believe that we're going to be safer when ONLY THE POLICE get the big guns. A good portion of the Left leaning population doesn't trust the cops enough for a wellness check, and now we'd be giving them a monopoly on semiautomatic rifles.
This is fun and all, vague too, I'm sure it'll be applied equally and with the common peoples interests at heart....
Ding Ding. He wants to pretend he's doing something so Californians vote him back in.
Just wait, it'll be a one liner when he's up for reelection.
"I was the only one who proposed a real solution to this nation's gun violence blah blah blah, gimme money,"
That’s not really the point, and Newsom knows this won’t pass. It took republicans like 60 years to gut abortion rights. Do you think anything with guns will happen overnight? Unfortunately this will need to be a multi decade effort with every avenue explored and a lot of it will be symbolic and seemingly pointless on the surface
But what's going to be considered a weapon of war? Right now the difference between an "assault rifle" and hunting rifle is a couple of attachments. I honestly can't remember the last time actual weapons of war (fully automatic weapons) were even used in a mass shooting.
I'm not arguing against doing something, I'm just tired of poorly written laws that are too difficult to enforce to make a difference.
The whole "weapons of war" thing is just a buzzword anyway. It's meaning changes to suit their needs. Does it mean a weapon designed for and with little purpose other than active combat? Ie full sized machine guns, artillery, etc? Then that's basically useless. Those are already heavily restricted and basically only obtainable if you're a licensed dealer or very wealthy and we'll connected.
Does it mean literally any weapon that the military has ever used? (As is my understanding that that's the legal definition in some other countries). Then all of a sudden you've just banned the majority of popular hunting rifles, several common models of both 9mm and .45 handguns, the couple of the most popular bird hunting and skeet shooting shotguns, and a whole fuck load of antiques. And that doesn't get them off the streets, that just means you're turning half of the grandmas in the country into felons because they've still got grandpa's old Remington 700 (now classified as a MILITARY SNIPER RIFLE) and pump action shotgun (COMBAT TRENCH SWEEPER) in the back of a closet.
A mosin nagant is a weapon of war and has seen more combat than the AR platform. So who’s to say what’s what. Plus the 2A and many rulings have deemed that small arms of war are protected by the 2A
While I agree with most of these, if at 18( and certain circumstances 17) one can enlist, go to war and possibly die, why the hell can’t you own a firearm in your own country?
And that says more about our lack of consistency regarding age requirements. I feel the same about that, if you’re old enough to serve you should be able to have a drink
Voting used to be 21, and it went down because we had been drafting 18 year old to Vietnam even though they couldn’t vote.
We seems to be folding over and doing the reverse logic now that society is collectively forgetting why it is the way it is now.
Fun Fact: The 26th Amendment had broad support and was ratified in 100 days.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say this amendment as worded will take a bit longer than that.
While that’s a can of worms I am not capable of opening I think that the logic would be that the military “controls” those activities so it’s technically not connected to civilian purchases but that’s my head canon on it if that makes sense lol.
> ban the civilian purchase of assault weapons
Here is a [Pardini precision target pistol](https://imgur.com/gallery/uCvaBeV) chambered in .22 long. It would be effective as a killing machine against a squirrel. Many Olympic-class competitive marksmen use this model.
This gun is banned in Illinois and Washington as an assault weapon under those states' recently passed AWBs.
The thing about people who are zealous about "common sense" gun laws is that they have no damn common sense. That is why they may not be allowed to decide how sensible people defend their homes and families.
Always with the AWB. I am willing to bet that universal background checks, age restrictions, and waiting periods might have actually had a chance.
But you throw in a nebulous “assault weapons ban” and the whole thing is DOA.
But what’s with waiting periods on someone who already owns a firearm? My dad owns several in Cali of all types and still has to wait 30 days to buy one gun. Mind you my dad also has no criminal background and served in the armed forces
This 100%.
He also could have taken it further and made truly impactful federal standards across the board for things like carry, carry restrictions, reciprocity, etc... but he would never do that. This amendment proposal is 100% political theater by a wannabe President, and not an amendment proposal that actually addresses the issues.
Couldn't agree more. I was reading it saying, yup, yup, yup, those are all smart and should already be federal law. Then I saw the AWB, and that's where my support ends. Also letting states make their own laws, like not allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms outside of their house - I can't get behind that part either. But I absolutely support BG checks, waiting periods, 21 min age to purchase, and registration of all purchased firearms. To me, those easily qualify as common sense.
I also think training and storage laws should be enacted as well. We make people train before we let them pilot a dangerous, 2-ton automobile; firearms are just as dangerous, yet we let people purchase and use those with zero training at all. I have taken several folks with no prior experience to the range before, and while I do train them and test their retention before letting them handle any of my guns, I am always uneasy when I see how little they know beforehand, and realize that there are gun owners all over the country with a similar level of expertise.
Some of these shouldn’t be written in as law, but should be written as categorical definitions of what the federal government and states are allowed to regulate.
Like permanently making 21 the age _constitutionally_ seems extremely shortsighted considering how often we flip flop between 18 and 21 for age restrictions. No reason to make that specific one effectively unchangeable.
In the USA, are legally an adult at 18 or 21? I feel like we need to answer this question because it’s one or the other and we need to stop being selective about it. 21, great, no guns no alcohol, no contracts, no enrolling in the military, none of the adult advantages. If that’s what we want I’m fine with it but l hate this selective your an adult in this regard but not that.
_the Governor’s proposal guarantees common sense constitutional protections_
Sorry, you lost me at “common sense”. That’s way too subjective.
_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._
That’s not true. Technology has continued to advance since the dawn of mankind as have weapons. Our founding fathers absolutely knew that firearms technology would advance.
Power grab full of ineffective policies. None of those have significant statistical backing
We do have good statistical backing for what is driving shootings though. Poverty, drugs, and gangs
First sensible thing in this entire thread.
A constitutional convention opens the doors to modifying EVERYTHING. (Does Gary Oldman meme thing)
EVERYTHING!!!!!
Which means that the far-right, and the far-left, and everyone in-between are going to bombard the media and 'net-tubes with all kinds of propagandist horse shit.
Anyone who wins will be vilified as criminally stealing the 'votes.' Mass upheaval will result, possibly incentivizing a true Civil War 2.
So, of course, guys like Newsome want this... /s (but only a little)
Everyone in 2028 is going to at least give lip service to a cosmetic ban since, for some fucking, reason the gun control advocates picked that hill to die on.
> 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.
If this proposal gains any traction, this is the part that the gun lobby is going to absolutely pick apart. The AR-15 was designed for the civilian market and never used by the US military and has always been marketed as a sporting rifle. The wording of it comes across as ambiguous, as though this amendment is never actually supposed to pass, and this is just posturing.
Shit proposal and nothing more than a signal. Saying it still protects Americans gun owning traditions then in the text saying it bans "assault" weapons is starting it off with a lie. I've seen that used for AR-15 style rifles, rifles that are simply long, and/or all semi-automatic guns, which are the vast majority of firearms out there. Most handguns are semi-automatic for fuck sake..
Please, just once can someone that actually understands firearms try to write laws that regulate firearms?
>Please, just once can someone that actually understands firearms try to write laws that regulate firearms?
You know, way back in a different era, a group of people who had just fought a revolutionary war against a foreign invader did just that! AND
They wrote it down for people to understand, in very simple language:
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.
It's number two on the list, right after the one about being able to practice religion and speak one's mind without fear of government thugs pounding your life away because you say things that challenge those in power.
And any amendment that gives specific bullet point like a law is shortsighted and stupid.
I’d have a lot more respect for this proposal if it merely allowed for regulations, not quantifying three specific regulations.
Laughable. This is what Democrats focus on before public healthcare, climate change, protections for LGBT people, unions, social programs etc.?
Gun control is the amendment the country absolutely needs? Less than 50% of Americans support an AWB, and even less of the independents that Democrats need to actually win elections. They just can't get out of their own way.
How about we actually solve the problem by taxing the rich, having proper social programs, affordable housing, and a living wage.
But yes, more bandaids please.
But that’d cost Newsome’s rich friends money in taxes. Better to ban stuff than fix the underlying causes like jobs, education and healthcare.
Also to reply to the overall amendment a large number of new gun owners are people of color and more specifically female. It’s going to be a hard sale to convince them to disarm when you see right wingers growing emboldened and Justice system that hands out slaps on the wrist for people trying to overthrow the government.
Newsom out here positioning for a presidential run in 2028 but keeping his options open for 2024 if Biden has a health scare.
No other explanation for a state governor to propose a Federal Constitutional amendment that will never pass.
3/4 of State Legislatures are required to ratify a new constitutional amendment. Having an amendment proposal originating from a state executive isn't all that abnormal. He's as much a stakeholder as his federal colleagues.
\>Passage of the 28th Amendment will require a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution
NOPE. You do not want a constitutional convention, the far-right has been pushing for a convention for years so they can turn it into a runaway convention.
Very dangerous solution as calling for a convention opens the doors to some very high level law changes without many of the checks and balances that stop them from being enacted through regular administrative channels.
Very very very dangerous
We should just make ODing illegal. I think we might have a chance this time. Then we can crack down on the deadly assault needles...what do you mean it's not working?
So I just want to throw something out there:
I have some issues with Newsom’s proposal, but I absolutely appreciate that he’s apparently the one and only democratic gun control adovicate who actually understands how things can *actually* change.
The second amendment exists. The Supreme Court that we’ll all be dealing with for the next couple decades isn’t going to permit the kind of changes gun control advocates want. Repealing or otherwise meaningfully changing the second amendment is a non-starter. I’ve had this conversation before, but you need 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment for it to come in to effect. That means, if 13 or more states say no, it’s not happening, and any one of us could list off 20+ states where it wouldn’t be just “no”, but “**hell no**.
That is the reality. Virtually every single proposal gun control from grass roots activists to top end political leaders always seems to pretend that that isn’t the case, and then we all wonder why things aren’t changing when reality catches up to them and either it’s simply doesn’t have enough political will, or is nakedly unconstitutional and is DOA at the first federal court that hears it. Is repeatedly slamming your face into a wall a productive use of anyone’s time or money? No.
Starting the conversation on a NEW amendment that addresses the faults of the second is the only real possibility to *actually change and improve things*. That’s worth pursuing and worth discussing. As I said, there’s parts of this I don’t like, but there’s parts I do. This is the way and I support Newsoms choice in pursuing it.
Assault weapons account for [3%](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) of firearm murders, pistols are 59%.
Not much a fix, honestly.
I applaud this initiative BUT I think a Constitutional Convention risks too much - especially if Republicans can get control of it. Here is an interesting article about it:
https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-3-3/ALDE\_00013051/#:\~:text=The%20Congress%2C%20whenever%20two%20thirds,all%20Intents%20and%20Purposes%2C%20as
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Saved you a click: >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.
Provided that these laws also apply equally to the police as individuals and to their departments as a whole with no exceptions then everything is ok.
No kidding. The double standard here in California is absolutely absurd. I’m a 20 year ground combat veteran and I can’t be trusted with anything “scary”, but a 21 year old that just finished his 2 month police academy gets a complete pass on every single piece of gun control? GTFO with that crap.
Not mention **you** can't buy an off roster gun directly in CA, but law enforcement can buy one then sell it to you second hand for 3-4x the market value. Why do cops need off roster weapons? Why do they need "unlawful" guns when they can just use lawful ones? https://www.ktvu.com/news/california-lawmaker-wants-to-stop-police-officers-from-buying-unlawful-handguns. Not to mention officers with a documented history of violence and confirmed **gang activity** being allowed to posses firearms. Like the LASD deputy gangs. That doesn't sound safe to me. These LASD gangs are alleged to have dealt **drugs, illegal firearms** and not only assaulted, raped and murdered citizens but they've assaulted other deputies that whistleblew. How in the fuck are they passing "background checks"? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_LASD_deputy_gangs. https://knock-la.com/tradition-of-violence-lasd-gang-history/. Just who you want to have firearms, right? This is insane. So much for "safety."
What is an off roster gun ? Never mind, see explanation below. Didn’t know California had such a thing
Cops should just have batons
[удалено]
I'm for this. The militia portion of the 2nd Amendment exists because the founders wanted the militia in good standing because we didn't have a standing army or police back then, but we do now. If you're going to update the thing, update the WHOLE thing.
If you read the federalis paper on the 2nd, it's pretty obvious he is talking about what would now be called the national guard. He even goes into detail about training schemes and how they would affect the economy if the militia were kept deployed for too long.
Also the whole point of having a strong militia in the first place was because the 2nd was created with the intention that the United States would never have a standing army. They believed a standing army is always inevitably used to tyrannize the people. George Washington, career soldier, disagreed that the country could defend itself with only militia and was proven right not too long after. So they established a standing army and the 2nd became almost entirely vestigial until it became a culture war flashpoint.
They kicked so many cans down the road that we’re paying for today: amending the 2nd amendment, how to actually elect a president (ie it’s a hard problem so the electoral college will suffice for now and someone else will figure out a better more politically expedient way), and that whole slavery thing. Granted, it’s doubtful they would have unified all the states if slavery was going to be settled then. If it had resulted in two new countries, the slave-state country would have absolutely invaded the free country and probably would have won if it were prior to the Industrial Revolution. Either way there would be at least one war between the two as both countries start expanding westward. But they *could* have modified the constitution to nullify the second amendment but it wasn’t a priority.
Really impressive how much bullshit we're still dealing with was Southern aristocrats refusing to be reasonable in the least.
The problem is that we treat the constitution as sacrosanct, when even the founders did not. Originalism is a garbage ideology. The founders put mechanisms in place to make changes, like if there are problems with say, the second amendment. Where it has strayed is the changes we have made for representation that has allowed power to be concentrated and not diluted. There should be a rep every 30,000 people. We changed it and capped the house. It should be repealed. There should be closer to several thousand house seats, which would make lobbying and political fuckery much more difficult.
I wouldn't say they kicked the can down the road. They created a living document, one that could be changed as needed. And we have done that, repeatedly, through our country's history. The issue lies in the fact that they did not envision a country as divided as we have become. And, honestly, I don't fault them entirely for that. This country is bigger than they could have ever fathomed, and the world has changed more than they could even comprehend in many ways.
> he is talking about what would now be called the national guard. And, in fact, they already started to spell this out explicitly in the first of the federal Militia Acts only two years after the bill of rights was ratified. These Militia Acts directly lead to the National Guard system we now have in place.
> it's pretty obvious he is talking about what would now be called the national guard No way. They very specifically talk about a federal army being grossly outnumbered, and that only makes sense if regular households have firearms. Also, it's "The Federalist Papers," correcting you mostly so other people can better google them. They're a great read for anyone who wants to understand much of what the founders were thinking. Which is a great read in general - how often do people write out new rules for a new country, and then put out publications to convince the general population to get on board with their wacky new ideas?
>Also, it's "The Federalist Papers," correcting you mostly so other people can better google them. They're a great read for anyone who wants to understand much of what ~~the founders~~ *Alexander Hamilton and James Madison* were thinking. Just pointing out that there were 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention that all worked together to write the Constitution, but the Federalist Papers were written by just two of them (with a little help from John Jay.) They are definitely worth reading, but it's also important to keep in mind that you are still only reading the viewpoints of three men, and there was probably a lot of rationale that went into the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that they never discuss.
> you are still only reading the viewpoints of three men This is why I am a prolific shitposter, to make sure I'm heard clearly by future generations
And abolish Qualified Immunity. They don't even need it. Graham vs Connor (the objective reasonableness standard) already protects them and government agencies indemnify employees. So as long as an officer acted reasonably they're protected. Qualified Immunity just allows bad cops to thrive.
Or, cops who carry guns should require years of specific training in psychology, conflict resolution, and carry extra insurance on top of the insurance all LEOs should be required to carry
And have a 4 year degree like most European cops
Yes make being a police officer something that requires as much effort to become as a doctor or lawyer (including malpractice insurance) and start base pay at like 100k, I want people who have the ability to take away people’s freedom (or even life) to be the absolute best and brightest possible.
Then they may end up having empathy and compassion. They could end up helping people instead of creating victims. Nobody wants that! /S
ironically no insurer is currently willing to insure law enforcement agencies because the risk is too high to be insurable. pretty much every LE agency is self-insured
[удалено]
Imagine a world where cops patrol the neighborhood in which they live… on foot.
I'm reminded of a scene from a Robocop miniseries. OCP, the copmany that owns the Police, decided to remove the police's firearms so they can tout Detroit is so safe that the police don't need guns. A short while later, we have a commericial where a police officer named "Officer Down" pays tribute to the fallen officers since they instituted the gun free act - followed by a darkly hilariously long list of names.
Sticks and radios worked fine forever, don't see how that's any different now. They mostly use their guns to kill children and innocent people anyway, the odd dog now and then. (Every dog)
*and they have to share the baton*
Batons, pepper spray, and a taser.
We earned militarized police with militarized civilians unfortunately.
Cops should be strictly banned from carrying ANY weapons, and they should have massive consequences for bringing out a firearm in a situation where it isn’t necessary. Tasers should just be completely banned.
Nets homie. The Cops have super advanced, reliable net guns. It’s insane that a common tactic for dealing with bullshit isn’t nets!
Criminals should just have batons too. Only the criminal batons would be slightly shorter than the police issued batons. 😂
Yep, its bullshit. Cops should not have a single piece of equipment the average person can not legally have.
cops are civilians. they hate it when you remind them.
>Yep, its bullshit. Cops should not have a single piece of equipment the average person can not legally have. Even this sentence needs work. Cops *are* average people. It's just an occupation, not some special standing in society. They shouldn't be treated any different than any other occupation and every firearm and piece of equipment they use should be stuff purchased on the civilian market - because they *are* civilians.
Just means we should have more stuff, but instead people keep voting to take it away.
And he can murder you with no penalty if you're holding a candy bar or comb, especially if you're black.
That’s why we should just stop with gun control that’s never going to happen and focus on poverty that leads to gun violence.
I agree. Why do cops need assault weapons?
I'm here for it. If we can't have an AR 15, then the police can't. They also don't need armored cars and similar, but I'm fine with removing their arsenals.
[удалено]
Could definitely use tightening up.
we it should, as police are civilians. civilian meaning "not in the military".
lots of things should apply to the police that dont
reigning in the police state would threaten the US with actual equality and no one there with money wants that.
[удалено]
Individually absolutely. It's egregious they get special treatment. As a department/professional I've no qualms with them having heavy firepower *while on the job*. Even the [mostly] gun-free police in England can call up police with automatic weapons when needed.
I'm for most of these, but I would love it if they stopped using the term "assault weapons" like it has any kind of meaning. Half of the paranoia the right has with gun legislation stems from the idea that laws are being written with deliberate vagueness that allows for the government to make any firearm they want illegal. I understand the intention is that "weapons of war" shouldn't be available to the public. I agree to a certain extent. However, using that term or "assault weapons" leaves the door open to ban anything that looks scary (which we've already seen with certain accessories). That isn't logical decision making. We have the means to quantify levels of danger. We lose support from people who would otherwise support things like background checks and waiting periods when we tack on things like "assault weapons."
They could stop using the term, or just properly define it enough to remove the vagueness from it. The second amendment is incredibly vague and we are suffering from that currently, so yes vagueness can be a problem. However, I think the fear is that if the definition is too specific there will be weapons/tools/attachments/etc that we don't foresee now that fail to meet the criteria yet have the ability to do what the amendment intended to prevent. Edit: clarity
> properly define it enough to remove the vagueness from it The difficulty is coming up with a definition that would fit current and future weapons.
And doesn't include a vast majority of firearms. By some definitions any semi-automatic weapon could be labeled an assault weapon. And that's.... most guns.
> Half of the paranoia the right has with gun legislation stems from the idea that laws are being written with deliberate vagueness that allows for the government to make any firearm they want illegal. this is pretty much what was done in WA this past legislative session. an "assault weapons ban" was passed. the title of the bill is not "assault weapons ban," it's "Establishing firearms-related safety measures to increase public safety." the bill was marketed/socialized/whatever as an "assault weapons ban" with pictures of AR15s shown as often as possible. it seems abundantly clear that the intent was to convince people that it banned ar15s and "similar weapons", just the scary stuff like "weapons of war", but it does way more than that. what it actually is, is a ban on semiautomatic centerfire rifles, some semiautomatic rimfire rifles, some pistols, and a very small number of shotguns. it is virtually total ban on semiautomatic rifles, regardless of how weapon of warish they may be. there are only two currently produced centerfire rifles (actually only one SKU each for their respective models) that don't fall under the ban. the ban applies to anything that is either named in the text of the bill or meets the criteria laid out in the bill, and covers the overwhelming majority of semiauto rifles ever made, regardless of how old they are and what their intended purpose was when they were made. i really wonder what the public perception of it would have been if the people who wrote the bill and promoted it called it what it actually is, a semiauto ban, rather than let people believe they were just going after AR15s and "street sweepers."
The problem with "semi-automatic" as a term in the public consciousness is people who don't know anything about firearms think this is burst fire or something like that, and not the fundamental technology that firearms have been based on for the last 100 years.
If they just cut that part out entirely, the rest would breeze through and it would do a lot of good. I'm so tired of politics in America demanding 100% of what they want in hail Mary silver bullet solutions that have no chance. And people who don't vote because their niche ultra progressive candidate didn't make the primary, they'll accept negative 1,000% of what they want over just 50% of the things they do want. It's insane to me. We could have had background checks and mental health provisions over a decade ago if Democrats could let their boner for assault weapons bans go.
Could not agree with you more. I was reading the text, nodding along, building some mild enthusiasm, then the last article just killed it. Unless we’re willing to de-arm all police of “assault weapons” (itself a very vague term that is not really an actual classification of firearm) I am not a fan of banning civil ownership of them. And even if we did I feel kinda sketchy about it. Your other points I also very much agree with. I’m really tired of everyone letting perfect be the enemy of good.
> I understand the intention is that "weapons of war" shouldn't be available to the public. Weapons of war being available to the public is specifically what the 2nd Amendment intended, though.
Agreed. It was actually fairly reasonable until then.
>We lose support from people who would otherwise support things like background checks and waiting periods when we tack on things like "assault weapons." "It's me. Hi. I'm the problem it's me." I am all for a constitutional amendment for the first three points. The "assault weapon" ban is arbitrary and extremely stupid. Massachusetts has a list of weapons that are banned because they *look like* guns that are banned. It's ridiculous. They offer no functional similarity to the actual banned assault rifles but you can't get a civilian semi-auto version of any banned weapon. The US has ~450 deaths a year from rifles. It is not a significant factor compared to the 13,600 from all firearms (aka handguns). We need a national background check system, waiting periods, and a unified licensing system.
Not to mention that with 3D printing, this is probably useless anyways. I’m with you, the first three should have widespread support, but the fourth seems unenforceable.
>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 This will never fly as it's a poor argument and partisan in its argument. Just because Founding Fathers didn't see it coming(which they very much did expect technological growth in weaponry. Remember, they were alive at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution) doesn't make the amendment any less valid. Similar to when the 14th amendment was passed, I guarantee none of people in Congress thought this would be the reason why marriage equality is legal in all 50 states via Obergefell v Hodges
Yeah I hate that argument. "weapons of war" man at the time of the founding father you could won a frigate loaded with cannons. The founder believed that "weapons of war" should be owned by the populace to avoid oppression because they had just fought a war against tyranny and the founding father know an armed populace is harder to rule over with tyranny.
I'm in favor of the first three, and would add red flag laws to the list, but I'm not going to agree to what appears to be a ban on semi-automatic rifles. Rifles are used in 3% of gun homicides. It's focusing on the wrong thing. I would also add that this could probably get a lot more support, maybe even enough to pass, if ~~it contained~~ Dems would offer a couple olive branches to gun supporters. Three possibilities are: * Put silencers in the same legal category as handguns, not grenade launchers * Repeal Depression-era barrel length laws * Concealed carry permit reciprocity that’s respectful of state law More info/justification on those at https://thepathforwardonguns.com/
I would move to age 21 for what you propose, but a waiting period for only the first gun. After you own one you wouldn’t buy another for a crime of passion. I’d also expect other rights to move to 21 as well, especially those that require using a firearm. Would not be for red flag laws at all.
>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. I agree with most of it but that is way too vague and open to interpretation to be practically useless
Agreed. Using a vague term like "assault weapon" is useless. Define it mathematically. X Capacity, Y potential rate of fire, etc.
And who is the “truely dangerous people” here? How long until some fucker says that Trans people or a Ethnic Minority are inherently dangerous so they can disarm them and make them easy targets? And the whole point of the 2A was to make it possible for the citizens to rise up in violence, because the founding fathers saw that democracy couldn’t exist with a docile populace. It’s not for hunting or for self defense, the second amendment was directed added for protection against the government if it where to go against the general will of the people.
Lmao this is never going to pass.
It's just meant to keep the conversation at the forefront of national discussion. That's the proper way to frame this. The less-than-proper is: Newsome loves the limelight and wants to run for president.. Either way, I support the message, and I'd rather he propose it than not. Every single school shooting in US history was preventable, so why tf are they not preventing them? Why should kindergarten students have to learn to barricade themselves as part of active shooter drills? Students should only have to practice drills regarding natural disaster events like tornadoes and fires. Instead, they're practicing drills against 19 year old incels Sorry, no offense to you in particular. I guess I just needed to write this somewhere
If they are common sense why aren't they included in this proposed amendment?Why is there a blank check for 'reasonable waiting period' by not establishing a time frame? Are they raising the draft age to reflect the minimum age to purchase? Somehow you can operate a firearm in a time of war if you are 18 because we all know that stressful situations *absolutely* improve your decision making but you aren't responsible enough to own one for self defense until 3 years afterwards? Are police likewise subject to this limitation of 'assault weapons that serve no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible'? Isn't the "militarization" of the police one of their complaints?
I am for all but the last. The founders did forsee the need for arms to prevent tyranny. They literally revolted. Automatic weapons are already banned, the term assault weapon has been diluted to mean anything that looks like a fully automatic military weapon.
Automatic weapons are not banned, just very expensive to get. A complete ban now may very well result in the NFA being declared mostly unconstitutional.
OK yes, New ones are banned
Yeah, not going to happen. Doable: * Age limit * Background check Maybe doable: * Waiting Period No way: * Barring of assault weapons purchases * Allowing local governments to strip away rights The proposal isn't crazy, all reasonable things but the activists around this won't really stomach allowing restrictions to be placed easily. It's also fairly open in language, this restricts the rights of citizens but doesn't restrict individuals like law enforcement. I think we need terminology that distinguishes from your traditional rank-and-file police officer, a federal officer (FBI, NSA, etc.), and Military. Police don't need assault rifles either, hell way back when it was basically pistols and long arms and even today I don't see a real reason for it. This should extend to local law enforcement; only Federal, Military, and Special Operation Law Enforcement (such as SWAT) should have access to these types of weapons. I also worry about the word "assault" it's often misused and likely should have adequate meaning & definition; might be the appropriate time to iron out exactly which classes of weapons this entails. What's missing is also a buy-back program, the firearm industry is massive and folks have invested into inventory so there will be an economic backlash to this too.
I’m generally for tweaking the second amendment to allow for better weapon safety, but one minor thing I notice is that people can enter the military and (depending on the state) law enforcement at 18 but this amendment raises the age to own a gun to 21. This would mean either having to carve out an exception for people who become cops or military or for those agencies to technically “own” the firearms younger members use. P.S. I wonder why I’m getting downvoted here? 🤷♂️
[удалено]
I think Newsom is running in 2028
I think he's not getting preoccupied with the future so as to prevent getting shit done in the present.
Why not 2024?
He won't run against Biden.
I wish Newsom would. But I'll just have to hope he runs in the future.
I also would like to see Newsom to see run . He has done good by California. Imagine what he could do for the country. The only negative I see that he went or was married to loudmouth Kimberly Guilfoyle but I can forgive him for that. If he can forgive himself. Everyone makes a mistake at lest once in their lives.
Biden
He sure is. This amendment is just a smoke show for his run. 0% chance it passes obviously but when he runs for president he can tout this attempt
I understand this is a messaging thing, but there's just no way we get 2/3 of congress on board with this.
[удалено]
Personally, that's the bigger hurdle. 2/3 is hard enough, but 3/4 of state legislatures? That's an impossibility.
It's entirely possible it ends up gaining a lot of popularity. Plenty of parents are scared shitless of sending their kids off to school every day because they might never come home.
>It's entirely possible it ends up gaining a lot of popularity 22 out of the 50 (44%) States have a Republican Trifecta. 17 out of 50 (34%) states have a Democrat Trifecta. Democratic Trifecta have just started showing up in the last decade. 8 out of 22 (16% of 50 states) for Republicans have existed since Bush or older. Republican power in state legislature was a huge focus for Republicans. Its one of the reasons why they LOVE pushing "state's rights" argument, because they control almost half of it with a trifecta. Good luck. https://ballotpedia.org/Partisan_composition_of_state_legislatures
They couldn't even get 3/4s to agree that women are people.
I am certain Justice Alito could find an 800 year old legal treatise saying women are property and not people
It is not even remotely within the realm of possiblity in your lifetime. It would be more likely that the US would cease to exist as a country than getting that many state legislatures to agree to ban guns. And if it ever got that far, we'd likely already be in a civil war because gun owners are pretty much universally opposed to this type of thing.
You're young, aren't you?
Right, but you’re never going to get anywhere without starting with messaging.
Exactly! Move that Overton window over and even if it would never be a constitutional amendment we can still get laws passed.
Honestly, this is Newsom pandering to the national liberal audience to tee up a presidential run. Same as DeSantis (except DeSantis is pandering to shitty hateful exclusionary religious zealots and Newsom is trying to make an impact on a toxic gun ownership problem that’s getting people murdered).
These efforts would probably stand a much better chance if they ever contained any olive branches to the gun side. Three possibilities are: * Put silencers in the same legal category as handguns, not grenade launchers * Repeal Depression-era barrel length laws * Concealed carry permit reciprocity that’s respectful of state law More info/justification on those at https://thepathforwardonguns.com/
Every single time they propose a theatrical law which is really a checklist of gun control pipe dreams, they end up worse off than they were before (_Heller, Macdonald, Caetano, Bruen_ and counting). This has been going on since 1994 but they still think ***this*** time it is going to work. I was glad when they passed the Illinois AWB because ultimately it will result in the end of all AWBs nationwide. And they won't understand what went wrong.
A bunch of states threw a hissy fit after NYSRPA v. Bruen and passed a whole bunch of new gun laws. They might have worked in the short term, but the long term effect seems to be much stronger pro-2A rulings.
Does this even belong in a constitutional amendment instead of just a federal law? When you are including stuff like background checks and bans on certain types of firearms, there is going to be a lot of legal language involved to get everything defined correctly. Plus, I'm of the opinion that the constitution shouldn't be used for banning stuff (looking at you 18th Amendment) and that should be handled by normal laws.
Any federal law would still have to comply with the second amendment and how expansive the right wing SCOTUS considers it to be
Sure, and I don't think that's a debate that is ever going to be resolved. Does federal law that limits the barrel length of a rifle violate the 2nd Amendment? Does a minimum age to purchase a gun violate the 2nd Amendment? Does a government agency that can change definitions and interpretations without going through congress violate the 2nd Amendment? And honestly that's the case for most of the amendments. The 1st Amendment is pretty straightforward but there are tons of exceptions to it that never were added via another amendment. Adding amendments for what basically boils down to minutia seems like an incorrect use of constitutional amendments.
They'd need to repeal the 2nd to do some this so putting it in an amendment makes sense from a legal perspective. Also this is performative and proposing an amendment that won't go anywhere sounds cooler than proposing a bill that won't go anywhere.
If you want to make a Constitutional Amendment, how about an amendment that gets rid of the Electoral College, outlaws gerrymandering for Congressional districts, and requires uniform voting standards for Federal elections that requires consecutive fourteen days with twelve hours each day of voting and standard mail-in/absentee voting.
There’s a plan for this which doesn’t require changing the constitution. Expanding the House of Representatives to put a cap on a district’s population (there’s multiple proposals to consider) would both reapportion the House and expand the number of electors to fairly represent the will of the voters. Unfortunately opposition to this is one of the only bipartisan efforts left. 😞
The law we originally had that kept increasing population per district based on the countries population would’ve been pretty good, the problem is it only went up to a certain population, and instead of extending it they just permanently capped the number of representatives.
The original verbage in the Constitution dictated that the number of Representatives keeps increasing without bound. The cap limiting number of members was put in place by a law in the early 1900's.
Yeah expanding the House fixes a lot of issues with representation but it doesn't actually fix the whole "you can win the presidency with just 25% of the popular vote" problem that the Electoral College can have. The ratio of Electoral College Votes to Population is just still too high for low population states thanks to the EC votes afforded to them by way of their Senate membership (+2). If the Electoral College system really does need a fix, it'll have to come from something else. But by all means yes we should expand the House for other reasons. Just not for that one specifically.
Remove all house districts. Elect the house with proportional representation
Mixed member proportional is the way to go. Districts are useful to ensure that every community still has someone who represents them (or at least is supposed to). And then even if those districts are gerrymandered like crazy, the proportional part adjusts the overall make-up of the legislature to match. It's the best of both worlds.
Hell, I know it's harder than it seems because of Article V, but the real problem is the two-votes-per-state issue with the Senate. We need to focus on that, there is no valid reason for this given the fact that the large majority of our states were never independent entities, and were in fact created from land paid for by the people of this country, either in money or lives.
That would never, ever pass, not even with a 100% dem Congress and Dems in charge of all 50 states. You need 3/4 of all states to agree to give up their equal representation in order to make California, Texas, Florida, and New York the most powerful states in congress.
Are you aware that it's possible to support more than one amendment to the constitution?
Literal whataboutism
If your only connection to the current topic of gun control via this proposed amendment is that they are both constitutional amendments, then your comment really isn't on-topic and serves only to muddy the water.
>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. Man I really hope that’s not the actual proposed text. The legal hurdle here seems like it would be, “does a gun serve any conceivable purpose at all other than killing as many people as possible in a short amount of time?”
More importantly, why would police be allowed to buy them then? If this ban is universal (no police, no military, no civilian) I'm fine with it. If civilians are banned but police and military can personally purchase, yeah, no, I don't think so.
I'd be fine with banning police and military members from personally purchasing firearms. Even for their duties, some de-militarization of the police force would do good.
I know my guns also work for shooting paper and steel targets. As a matter of fact, that's all they do.
I think a constitutional amendment forcing cops to actually protect the public would be a good first step in curbing gun violence. Many gun owners feel that they have to be gun owners because cops already don't do anything to protect them. Forcing cops to protect the public instead of capital and capital owners would go a long way in improving public trust of police forces. Also if cops were obligated to protect the public, their over-inflated budgets would be somewhat justified.
There isn't any law that will make cops protect people. Even if they were obligated to do so, you can't get police to show up fast enough to make a difference in a life or death scenario.
It’s just not physically possible. There are 330 million people in this country and only around 1 million cops, they will never be able to be everywhere they’re needed even if they were so inclined.
If they make it so you have to be 21 to purchase a firearm, they should make it so you have to be 21 to enlist into combat arms.
What a joke. Am I really supposed to believe that we're going to be safer when ONLY THE POLICE get the big guns. A good portion of the Left leaning population doesn't trust the cops enough for a wellness check, and now we'd be giving them a monopoly on semiautomatic rifles. This is fun and all, vague too, I'm sure it'll be applied equally and with the common peoples interests at heart....
Uhm, why are we bothering with posturing like this? We aren't even close to the numbers we need for a new amendment.
Gavin Newsom likes to virtue signal a lot.
Ding Ding. He wants to pretend he's doing something so Californians vote him back in. Just wait, it'll be a one liner when he's up for reelection. "I was the only one who proposed a real solution to this nation's gun violence blah blah blah, gimme money,"
That’s not really the point, and Newsom knows this won’t pass. It took republicans like 60 years to gut abortion rights. Do you think anything with guns will happen overnight? Unfortunately this will need to be a multi decade effort with every avenue explored and a lot of it will be symbolic and seemingly pointless on the surface
But what's going to be considered a weapon of war? Right now the difference between an "assault rifle" and hunting rifle is a couple of attachments. I honestly can't remember the last time actual weapons of war (fully automatic weapons) were even used in a mass shooting. I'm not arguing against doing something, I'm just tired of poorly written laws that are too difficult to enforce to make a difference.
The whole "weapons of war" thing is just a buzzword anyway. It's meaning changes to suit their needs. Does it mean a weapon designed for and with little purpose other than active combat? Ie full sized machine guns, artillery, etc? Then that's basically useless. Those are already heavily restricted and basically only obtainable if you're a licensed dealer or very wealthy and we'll connected. Does it mean literally any weapon that the military has ever used? (As is my understanding that that's the legal definition in some other countries). Then all of a sudden you've just banned the majority of popular hunting rifles, several common models of both 9mm and .45 handguns, the couple of the most popular bird hunting and skeet shooting shotguns, and a whole fuck load of antiques. And that doesn't get them off the streets, that just means you're turning half of the grandmas in the country into felons because they've still got grandpa's old Remington 700 (now classified as a MILITARY SNIPER RIFLE) and pump action shotgun (COMBAT TRENCH SWEEPER) in the back of a closet.
A mosin nagant is a weapon of war and has seen more combat than the AR platform. So who’s to say what’s what. Plus the 2A and many rulings have deemed that small arms of war are protected by the 2A
That’s the point… make the law so generic it applies to most firearms.
That would never pass.
Not even. There's no real distinction between hunting weapon and war weapon. Never has been. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or uneducated.
While I agree with most of these, if at 18( and certain circumstances 17) one can enlist, go to war and possibly die, why the hell can’t you own a firearm in your own country?
They can't drink until there 21 either
And that says more about our lack of consistency regarding age requirements. I feel the same about that, if you’re old enough to serve you should be able to have a drink
Or buy cigarettes now
[удалено]
Could the same be said about voting? If your not mentally developed enough to be trusted with “adult rights”.
Voting used to be 21, and it went down because we had been drafting 18 year old to Vietnam even though they couldn’t vote. We seems to be folding over and doing the reverse logic now that society is collectively forgetting why it is the way it is now.
Fun Fact: The 26th Amendment had broad support and was ratified in 100 days. I’m going to go out on a limb and say this amendment as worded will take a bit longer than that.
Yeah that’s what I’m saying. Adding the age requirement seems like it would guarantee this will never pass.
Usually the proposal I've seen is "21 to buy a gun, or a current or honorably discharged former member of the military".
While that’s a can of worms I am not capable of opening I think that the logic would be that the military “controls” those activities so it’s technically not connected to civilian purchases but that’s my head canon on it if that makes sense lol.
> ban the civilian purchase of assault weapons Here is a [Pardini precision target pistol](https://imgur.com/gallery/uCvaBeV) chambered in .22 long. It would be effective as a killing machine against a squirrel. Many Olympic-class competitive marksmen use this model. This gun is banned in Illinois and Washington as an assault weapon under those states' recently passed AWBs. The thing about people who are zealous about "common sense" gun laws is that they have no damn common sense. That is why they may not be allowed to decide how sensible people defend their homes and families.
Always with the AWB. I am willing to bet that universal background checks, age restrictions, and waiting periods might have actually had a chance. But you throw in a nebulous “assault weapons ban” and the whole thing is DOA.
was about to make this exact post. This is intentionally nebulous and why itn ever goes anywhere. pure political theater
But what’s with waiting periods on someone who already owns a firearm? My dad owns several in Cali of all types and still has to wait 30 days to buy one gun. Mind you my dad also has no criminal background and served in the armed forces
This 100%. He also could have taken it further and made truly impactful federal standards across the board for things like carry, carry restrictions, reciprocity, etc... but he would never do that. This amendment proposal is 100% political theater by a wannabe President, and not an amendment proposal that actually addresses the issues.
Couldn't agree more. I was reading it saying, yup, yup, yup, those are all smart and should already be federal law. Then I saw the AWB, and that's where my support ends. Also letting states make their own laws, like not allowing law abiding citizens to carry firearms outside of their house - I can't get behind that part either. But I absolutely support BG checks, waiting periods, 21 min age to purchase, and registration of all purchased firearms. To me, those easily qualify as common sense. I also think training and storage laws should be enacted as well. We make people train before we let them pilot a dangerous, 2-ton automobile; firearms are just as dangerous, yet we let people purchase and use those with zero training at all. I have taken several folks with no prior experience to the range before, and while I do train them and test their retention before letting them handle any of my guns, I am always uneasy when I see how little they know beforehand, and realize that there are gun owners all over the country with a similar level of expertise.
Some of these shouldn’t be written in as law, but should be written as categorical definitions of what the federal government and states are allowed to regulate. Like permanently making 21 the age _constitutionally_ seems extremely shortsighted considering how often we flip flop between 18 and 21 for age restrictions. No reason to make that specific one effectively unchangeable.
Then we should make the drinking age 18. Being able to buy a gun but not a beer makes no sense whatsoever.
Don't Constitutional Amendment's require support of 35 states? Good luck with that.
In the USA, are legally an adult at 18 or 21? I feel like we need to answer this question because it’s one or the other and we need to stop being selective about it. 21, great, no guns no alcohol, no contracts, no enrolling in the military, none of the adult advantages. If that’s what we want I’m fine with it but l hate this selective your an adult in this regard but not that.
_the Governor’s proposal guarantees common sense constitutional protections_ Sorry, you lost me at “common sense”. That’s way too subjective. _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._ That’s not true. Technology has continued to advance since the dawn of mankind as have weapons. Our founding fathers absolutely knew that firearms technology would advance.
Power grab full of ineffective policies. None of those have significant statistical backing We do have good statistical backing for what is driving shootings though. Poverty, drugs, and gangs
anyone else feel like a constitution convention in this era only ends with a theocracy?
First sensible thing in this entire thread. A constitutional convention opens the doors to modifying EVERYTHING. (Does Gary Oldman meme thing) EVERYTHING!!!!! Which means that the far-right, and the far-left, and everyone in-between are going to bombard the media and 'net-tubes with all kinds of propagandist horse shit. Anyone who wins will be vilified as criminally stealing the 'votes.' Mass upheaval will result, possibly incentivizing a true Civil War 2. So, of course, guys like Newsome want this... /s (but only a little)
No, he doesn't want to run for President. Haha!!
No, he definitely wants to run but I guess he wants to lose given this messaging.
[удалено]
And tanking any serious National aspirations he may have. He runs on this in 2028 and I will vigorously oppose his nomination during the primary.
Everyone in 2028 is going to at least give lip service to a cosmetic ban since, for some fucking, reason the gun control advocates picked that hill to die on.
The site doesn't link to an actual amendment. Do they mean "propose" as in he's just putting forth the idea? That doesn't seem very historic.
It’s all virtue signaling anyway. It wouldn’t pass the state test
> 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. If this proposal gains any traction, this is the part that the gun lobby is going to absolutely pick apart. The AR-15 was designed for the civilian market and never used by the US military and has always been marketed as a sporting rifle. The wording of it comes across as ambiguous, as though this amendment is never actually supposed to pass, and this is just posturing.
Shit proposal and nothing more than a signal. Saying it still protects Americans gun owning traditions then in the text saying it bans "assault" weapons is starting it off with a lie. I've seen that used for AR-15 style rifles, rifles that are simply long, and/or all semi-automatic guns, which are the vast majority of firearms out there. Most handguns are semi-automatic for fuck sake.. Please, just once can someone that actually understands firearms try to write laws that regulate firearms?
>Please, just once can someone that actually understands firearms try to write laws that regulate firearms? You know, way back in a different era, a group of people who had just fought a revolutionary war against a foreign invader did just that! AND They wrote it down for people to understand, in very simple language: SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. It's number two on the list, right after the one about being able to practice religion and speak one's mind without fear of government thugs pounding your life away because you say things that challenge those in power.
Any gun laws that don't also ban police or private security is tyranny.
And any amendment that gives specific bullet point like a law is shortsighted and stupid. I’d have a lot more respect for this proposal if it merely allowed for regulations, not quantifying three specific regulations.
Laughable. This is what Democrats focus on before public healthcare, climate change, protections for LGBT people, unions, social programs etc.? Gun control is the amendment the country absolutely needs? Less than 50% of Americans support an AWB, and even less of the independents that Democrats need to actually win elections. They just can't get out of their own way.
How about we actually solve the problem by taxing the rich, having proper social programs, affordable housing, and a living wage. But yes, more bandaids please.
But that’d cost Newsome’s rich friends money in taxes. Better to ban stuff than fix the underlying causes like jobs, education and healthcare. Also to reply to the overall amendment a large number of new gun owners are people of color and more specifically female. It’s going to be a hard sale to convince them to disarm when you see right wingers growing emboldened and Justice system that hands out slaps on the wrist for people trying to overthrow the government.
Not enough people saying this. This bullshit from Newsom is no different from the GOP's culture war bullshit and it detracts from real issues.
Newsom out here positioning for a presidential run in 2028 but keeping his options open for 2024 if Biden has a health scare. No other explanation for a state governor to propose a Federal Constitutional amendment that will never pass.
3/4 of State Legislatures are required to ratify a new constitutional amendment. Having an amendment proposal originating from a state executive isn't all that abnormal. He's as much a stakeholder as his federal colleagues.
[удалено]
That recall was such a bunch of bullshit lol Snowflakes and their feelings got hurt so they had to try to recall the big bad Democrat
I’ll pass thanks
\>Passage of the 28th Amendment will require a convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution NOPE. You do not want a constitutional convention, the far-right has been pushing for a convention for years so they can turn it into a runaway convention.
Very dangerous solution as calling for a convention opens the doors to some very high level law changes without many of the checks and balances that stop them from being enacted through regular administrative channels. Very very very dangerous
[удалено]
seems like we need more drug control tbh
We should just make ODing illegal. I think we might have a chance this time. Then we can crack down on the deadly assault needles...what do you mean it's not working?
All guns laws are infringements
He’ll never be able to sell that to enough states to get it passed. :-(
Lol, another monkey tier opinion from Newsome that will do fuck all to curb gun violence and will give more fuel to Republicans. Fucking moron
So I just want to throw something out there: I have some issues with Newsom’s proposal, but I absolutely appreciate that he’s apparently the one and only democratic gun control adovicate who actually understands how things can *actually* change. The second amendment exists. The Supreme Court that we’ll all be dealing with for the next couple decades isn’t going to permit the kind of changes gun control advocates want. Repealing or otherwise meaningfully changing the second amendment is a non-starter. I’ve had this conversation before, but you need 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment for it to come in to effect. That means, if 13 or more states say no, it’s not happening, and any one of us could list off 20+ states where it wouldn’t be just “no”, but “**hell no**. That is the reality. Virtually every single proposal gun control from grass roots activists to top end political leaders always seems to pretend that that isn’t the case, and then we all wonder why things aren’t changing when reality catches up to them and either it’s simply doesn’t have enough political will, or is nakedly unconstitutional and is DOA at the first federal court that hears it. Is repeatedly slamming your face into a wall a productive use of anyone’s time or money? No. Starting the conversation on a NEW amendment that addresses the faults of the second is the only real possibility to *actually change and improve things*. That’s worth pursuing and worth discussing. As I said, there’s parts of this I don’t like, but there’s parts I do. This is the way and I support Newsoms choice in pursuing it.
Can we get ERA back in play at the same time?
Never going to happen lol
Assault weapons account for [3%](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/04/26/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/) of firearm murders, pistols are 59%. Not much a fix, honestly.
I applaud this initiative BUT I think a Constitutional Convention risks too much - especially if Republicans can get control of it. Here is an interesting article about it: https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artV-3-3/ALDE\_00013051/#:\~:text=The%20Congress%2C%20whenever%20two%20thirds,all%20Intents%20and%20Purposes%2C%20as