Newsom Proposes Fantasy Constitutional Amendment on Guns

Good goal, bad strategy. Photo: David McNew/Getty Images

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

Few people on the left or center of the ideological spectrum would dismiss Newsom’s argument that urgent measures are needed to stem a frightful national tide of gun violence, especially mass shootings. And many share his frustration with both Republican politicians who ignore bipartisan public opinion favoring modest gun-safety measures and conservative judges who interpret the Second Amendment in unprecedented ways to enable rapid expansion of gun ownership and ever-looser standards for who can pack heat and use deadly force.

Indeed, Newsom’s proposal, as described by the Los Angeles Times, is a far cry from the mass confiscation of guns liberals are planning in the fervid imaginations of Second Amendment absolutists:

Outlaw the civilian purchase of assault weapons.

Raise the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21.

Mandate universal background checks for gun purchases.

Institute a “reasonable waiting” period for all gun purchases.

But the proposed means for securing this menu of gun-safety measures is pure fantasy. There’s a reason the last amendment (the 27th, a wildly popular idea to make members of Congress face voters before any pay raise they authorize for themselves is actually disbursed) was finally ratified in 1992, after it had been kicking around since 1789. That’s how hard it is to amend the U.S. Constitution to do anything remotely controversial.

Sensibly enough, Newsom wants to avoid going to Congress for his 28th Amendment, where a two-thirds vote in both chambers would be required. Not so sensibly, he plans instead to pursue a state-initiated constitutional convention to propose and approve the amendment. That requires a “call” from 33 states, which is quite a few more than the number (19) currently controlled by Newsom’s Democratic Party. This has never, ever happened in the history of the republic, in part out of fear that once a constitutional convention is formed, it will prove impossible to limit the amendments it produces to the original scheme.

If that’s not enough grounds for pessimism, there’s also this: Whether constitutional amendments are proposed by Congress or by a state-called convention, they must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (that would be 38 states). That’s why six amendments approved by Congress (including the Equal Rights Amendment) were never fully ratified.

Perhaps Newsom thinks futile activity in the states on the gun issue will be provide a valuable impetus to progressive voter mobilization. But one suspects he’s chosen this route to give California — and himself — a concrete step to take down a beautiful road that unfortunately leads nowhere.

It would actually be more practicable for gun-safety advocates to invest in continuing to push the envelope in the courts, and in the longer term, to shape a federal judiciary skeptical toward Second Amendment absolutism. It might take a while, but unlike Newsom’s approach, it might happen before hell freezes over.