Gavin Newsom’s national traipsing is a thinly veiled excuse to set up his own run for president. To deliver the attention he craves he created his 28th Amendment announcing:

I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to … enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety…while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged ...”

Huh? Leave the 2nd Amendment unchanged yet enshrine open-ended gun control language in direct defiance.  How can Newsom hold this contradiction?  Newsom doesn’t see it that way.  A fundamental tenet of his postmodern philosophy is to deny that he is even constrained by reason itself.  To him, truth and knowledge are empty concepts. He is guided by social construction and relative feeling rather than reason and objective reality.    

Newsom’s proposed 28th amendment states: 

“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.”

Let’s take a closer look at examples of Newsom’s open-ended language.

Newsom’s Open-Ended LanguageCritical Analysis
“… prevent truly dangerous people”Who decides if someone is ‘truly dangerous’?  Some would make the case that Libertarians are truly dangerous due to our political views.
“… a gun that could be used in a crime”Couldn’t every gun be used in a crime?  Perhaps that’s exactly what Newsom is after.
“… a reasonable waiting period”Some liberals would have you wait indefinitely for your gun purchase with an endless string of red tape and consider it perfectly reasonable.
“Barring civilian purchase of assault weapons…”The definition of ‘assault weapon’ is purposely left open to subjective interpretation by some government regulator.
“…that serve no other purpose …”If Newsom had his way, you would have to define – to the satisfaction of some regulator – for what purpose you are seeking to purchase a gun.
“…weapons of war our nation’s founders never foresaw.”A strong case could be made that the founders thought only ‘weapons of war’ be enshrined in the 2nd amendment. 
“… enact additional common-sense gun safety regulations”There is no such thing as ‘common sense’ but Democrats will conveniently define it for us.

Unlike the clear language of the 2nd amendment, Newsom’s 28th Amendment is purposely vague and subject to wide interpretation.

There are only two ways for Newsom to add his 28th amendment to the Constitution.  The first is to have two-thirds of all members of Congress – in both the House and Senate – vote in favor of this amendment.  Then at least thirty-eight states would need to approve it.  The second option is to have the state legislatures of at least thirty-three states agree to hold a constitutional convention.  At this convention of all the states, thirty-eight state legislatures would need to approve it.  Either way, Newsom would need to win over three-fourths of the states to get his amendment passed.

Gun ownership has evolved over the past 30 years – in states other than California – thus, either of these two options seems very improbable.  More states have actually broadened their Second Amendment protections.  In 1986, Vermont was the only state in the nation to have constitutional carry.  In a constitutional carry state, you do not need a permit to carry a gun because essentially the U.S Constitution was your permit.  Since that time, twenty-seven states have become constitutional carry states.  Thus, the idea that Newsom could get two-thirds of these constitutional carry states to agree to even discussing his gun limiting amendment is highly unlikely. And then to subsequently have three-fourths of those states (a supermajority) to agree to his 28th Amendment – is simply folly.

The opinions shared here do not necessarily represent the official position of the Libertarian Party. These editorial articles have been submitted by Libertarians across the country, and featuring these topics does not represent an endorsement of the content therein.

The opinions shared here do not necessarily represent the official position of the Libertarian Party. These editorial articles have been submitted by Libertarians across the country, and featuring these topics does not represent an endorsement of the content therein.