Re: 28th Amendment

2
I suspect this was in the news this morning as a reporter gleefully mentioned newscum and a “new direction” to address gun…..at that point I turned it away.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: 28th Amendment

3
This is from Newsom's state website:
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.
https://www.gov.ca.gov/2023/06/08/28th- ... 20foresaw.

Newsom is running for the WH, he just hasn't announced it. There aren't 34 states that would ratify it, so it's dead in the water, but he's a hero in the blue anti-gun states.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 28th Amendment

5
Yup and His Sliminess also said,
The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – while leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition.”
Newsom is so full of BS that he's an environmental hazard. Some states would enact so many "common sense regulations" that one would have to have passed a thorough background check including multiple interviews, a full psychological assessment running over many days, have months of training annually and only allowed to purchase 22lr 10 round pistols and rifles and only buy 50 rounds at a time.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 28th Amendment

6
featureless wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:04 am I like the part that says congress and states can enact whatever other common sense regulations they can dream up. That ain't a right. California would find it common sense to just ban everything.
Yeppers: the Ninth and Tenth Amendments pretty much say the States can try just about anything, but that is subject to SCOTUS review.

Actually, the only provision of his that I would oppose is the last, the "assault weapons" clause. Now, I'm open to long guns before 21 but after 18. However, I don't think any true harm would befall us if 21 became the gun age. I will not push hard there. Concealable guns, though, 21 works for me.

CDFingers
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world

Re: 28th Amendment

8
There is a ratified 28th Amendment already, although states that once ratified it now want to take back their ratification. It's called the Equal Rights Amendment and I don't understand why it is not ALREADY considered part of the Constitution.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: 28th Amendment

9
YankeeTarheel wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:55 am There is a ratified 28th Amendment already, although states that once ratified it now want to take back their ratification. It's called the Equal Rights Amendment and I don't understand why it is not ALREADY considered part of the Constitution.
I don't understand, either, even though I am fairly certain that the why is "patriarchal asshats insisting that wimmenfolk remain second-class citizens." Not enough of those asshats have died off yet.
Eventually I'll figure out this signature thing and decide what I want to put here.

Re: 28th Amendment

11
On the one hand, one could say at least he's being honest. I've often told my (many) anti-gun friends and family that if you want guns gone you gotta change The Constitution. But the truth is, it's really just dishonest pandering and fundraising, knowing he can't get it done. Which will lead to more fundraising.

Re: 28th Amendment

12
cooper wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:44 pm On the one hand, one could say at least he's being honest. I've often told my (many) anti-gun friends and family that if you want guns gone you gotta change The Constitution. But the truth is, it's really just dishonest pandering and fundraising, knowing he can't get it done. Which will lead to more fundraising.
Possibly can’t get it done and positively will lose votes that want to preserve the second.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: 28th Amendment

13
I can answer why the ERA amendment hasn’t been “enrolled into the books” or whatever they call it. The problem is that congress put a time limit on ratification. Sometime in the 70s. Congress extended it at least once but the time limit had passed by the time enough states had ratified it. There is a court case about whether congress can limit the way an amendment is ratified. The plaintiffs lost at the dc circuit. I’m pretty sure that a state can’t “unratify”- but who knows what the SC would do now? Anyway it’s a raw deal because congress could vote to eliminate the time limit and make it retroactive. But these idiots couldn’t agree on that.

Re: 28th Amendment

14
Fun fact, the 27th was one of the original amendments written by Madison. It took forever to reach the ratification threshold, but it did - in 1992. Much to Congress' chagrin, because it meant they couldn't vote themselves raises anymore. The idea of putting a time limit on ratification was introduced to limit the potential for such loitering amendments. The time limit has never faced scrutiny in federal court and might not be Constitutionally sanctioned. In other words, the ERA might already be the 28th but the Supreme Court would have to approve it, and we probably would need three more liberal justices to get there. Snap.

Newsom's proposal is as dead in the water as the Flag Burning Amendments of the 1990s. Zero chance of ratification in our lifetimes, red meat and dog whistles.

Re: 28th Amendment

15
cooper wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:44 pm On the one hand, one could say at least he's being honest. I've often told my (many) anti-gun friends and family that if you want guns gone you gotta change The Constitution. But the truth is, it's really just dishonest pandering and fundraising, knowing he can't get it done. Which will lead to more fundraising.
Newsom's claim is this would preserve 2A. The campaign must have focus-grouped this, determining the proposed restrictions are in line with current Democratic Party values.

Re: 28th Amendment

16
The very liberal New York Magazine refers to it as a fantasy.
For some, California governor Gavin Newsom’s proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to enable stronger gun regulation burnishes his image as a bold progressive unafraid to take on Red America. For others, it’s another empty gesture from a political showboat. People in both camps, however, can probably agree that this proposal is not going anywhere in the foreseeable future. Surely understanding this, Newsom chose to unveil the idea not in some tough venue featuring political and legal experts, but on the Today Show.
But the proposed means for securing this menu of gun-safety measures is pure fantasy. There’s a reason the last amendment (the 27th, a wildly popular idea to make members of Congress face voters before any pay raise they authorize for themselves is actually disbursed) was finally ratified in 1992, after it had been kicking around since 1789. That’s how hard it is to amend the U.S. Constitution to do anything remotely controversial. Sensibly enough, Newsom wants to avoid going to Congress for his 28th Amendment, where a two-thirds vote in both chambers would be required. Not so sensibly, he plans instead to pursue a state-initiated constitutional convention to propose and approve the amendment. That requires a “call” from 33 states, which is quite a few more than the number (19) currently controlled by Newsom’s Democratic Party.

This has never, ever happened in the history of the republic, in part out of fear that once a constitutional convention is formed, it will prove impossible to limit the amendments it produces to the original scheme. If that’s not enough grounds for pessimism, there’s also this: Whether constitutional amendments are proposed by Congress or by a state-called convention, they must be ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states (that would be 38 states). That’s why six amendments approved by Congress (including the Equal Rights Amendment) were never fully ratified.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/06 ... -guns.html

Newsom has always been a media whore, this is just another example.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: 28th Amendment

17
Gun stuff aside, I am fundamentally opposed to the use of the constitution to limit the rights of the people. It goes right along with a proposal that the 1A is great but subject to a background check, waiting period and banning of, say, Judaism. Oh and whatever other regulations states come up with are cool, too. Fuck that noise. Government has plenty of power already.

Re: 28th Amendment

18
featureless wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 9:28 am Gun stuff aside, I am fundamentally opposed to the use of the constitution to limit the rights of the people. It goes right along with a proposal that the 1A is great but subject to a background check, waiting period and banning of, say, Judaism. Oh and whatever other regulations states come up with are cool, too. Fuck that noise. Government has plenty of power already.
Same position here.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: 28th Amendment

21
cooper wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 11:29 am Crap -- I just gave a click to FoxNews.
I gave the same click and was not sorry. Found this from Fox:
The Golden State has one of the lowest rates of firearm mortality in the country, according to 2021 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The same CDC data showed New Hampshire — which received an F score on its gun laws from the pro-gun control Giffords Law Center — has an even lower firearm mortality rate than California.
Plus their graphic on their page about how many voters favor which provision. Lara Smith was 100% correct that it is grandstanding, and I'm glad she said as our spokespod that she was offended. Let's see where this goes. But I also agree with her that there is no chance this will happen. Now more on the right know we exist.

CDFingers
Wake up to find out that you are the eyes of the world

Re: 28th Amendment

23
Clicked as well. Still the story does place too much credibility on the emphasis of support for such. Surveys are never absolute and their validity needs to be questioned.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: 28th Amendment

25
At least Newsome wants to change the Constitution via legal means under Art V of the main body.
TOS says he'll issue an executive order ending the automatic right to citizenship if you're born in the USA, guaranteed in the 14th.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest