Posted on 06/16/2024 5:24:24 AM PDT by marktwain
On June 8, 2023, a year ago, Gavin Newsom, Governor of California and continuous supporter of ever-more laws restricting gun ownership and use, proposed an Article V convention of the states to amend the United States Constitution. The new amendment would allow for more restrictions on who may own firearms and what type they are allowed to own.
The initial proposition did not propose language for the Article V convention. It listed several possible restrictions without statutory language. Resolution 7 was passed on September 21 in the California legislature. After a long list of dubious assumptions, the effective wording of proposed restrictions is as follows:
(a) Affirm that federal, state, and local governments may adopt public safety regulations limiting aspects of firearms acquisition, possession, public carry, and use by individuals, and that such regulations are consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and the understanding that throughout American history private individuals have possessed firearms for home defense, hunting, and recreational purposes;(b) Impose, as a matter of national policy, the following firearms regulations and prohibitions: (1) universal background checks as a prerequisite to purchase or acquisition of a firearm, (2) a prohibition on sales, loans, or other transfers of firearms to those under 21 years of age, subject to limited exceptions, (3) a minimum waiting period after the purchase or acquisition of a firearm before that firearm may be delivered to the buyer or acquirer, and (4) a prohibition on the private possession of assault weapons and other weapons of war; and be it further
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Not afraid it would exceed it’s charter. Just do not understand why we should have an Article V convention. There is no reason to believe the convention could reach consensus on any issue. Does anyone believe the blue states would support any red state initiative? New York or California will not support a balanced budget for example. The red states will not support abortion. So why even bother?
Yes- some “last minute” additions added on the sly….
By proposing such, Newsome has become a national enemy subject to removal for cause
Dims would rather work through ATF, executive orders and judges than the Constitution.
You can bet your bippy that after the Democrats have pretty much decimated the Middle Class if they steal the 2024 election their first action will be to enact executive orders disarming all law abiding, not gang banger or criminals or illegals, citizens and then goodbye Republic.
“private possession of assault weapons and other weapons of war”
I think there are no specific definitions in there so a blanket approach to restricting weapons could be had. What I quoted above could include any weapon at all, be it a firearm, knife, sword or whatever that could be banned. Any weapon at all that could possibly be used in war could be banned.
With regard to “assault weapons”, I purchased my first AR 15 last year and love it. It’s fun for target practice and can be very useful in certain self defense scenarios, even though my preference is a Judge or 12 ga for home defense.
“IF you think that government is overbearing now just wait until you are completely disarmed” L.Star
“Its”, not “it’s.”
Exactly.
Too bad there’s not an “Apostrophe Abuse” button.
I actually SUPPORT Gavin doing this, although I oppose the convention because ‘changing the rules’ (the Constitution) means nothing to Fascists who cannot even follow existing rules...so even if Red States got changes to the Constitution enacted, Democrat judges would simply declare the changes to be ‘Unconstitutional’ - that’s how they operate, and some day Mark Levin will figure that out.
As to why I support Gavin on this, it is because he is ADMITTING that the Second Amendment allows private gun ownership, which is very, very, rare for a Democrat.
I would say he is ADMITTING the Second Amendment protects and guarantees the right of private gun ownership and carry outside the home.
Using the word "allows" changes the meaning of the Second Amendment.
That’s fair!
Nobody needs a modern, light, accurate, modular, ergonomically adjustable rifle that comes in a variety of calibers, and can be adapted to multiple uses.
Correcting grammar and spelling on the internet is a symptom of a inferiority complex.
Hey pretty boy. The Constitution doesn’t need amending. That would be an insurrection. Why don’t you just take you ass out shopping with tax payer dollars and call that good.
Complaining about grammar and spelling corrections is a symptom of inferior intelligence.
I’d use it.
“private possession of assault weapons and other weapons of war”
————-
I was trained by the Air Force on using a S&W Model 15, 6-shot .38 special revolver during service in the Cold War era. Is that now a “weapon of war?”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.