Gavin Newsom, His Highness the High Kommisar of California, has proposed a new “28th” Constitutional Amendment, to be prepared by a Constitutional Convention. According to this video, the Amendment would feature 4 keys: (1) prohibiting purchase of any gun by anyone under age 21, (2) requiring a “reasonable” waiting period before a person can take possession of a gun they have bought, (3) mandate “universal” background checks, and (4) prevent “civilians” from owning “assault weapons.” (Never mind defining these things: His Highness and his minions in the constitutional convention will do that for you.)
Now, before we all blow our tops, consider what Newsom has done by calling for a Constitutional Amendment that would modify the 2nd Amendment. (Or frankly, mostly negate it.)
The governor has tacitly admitted that the State of California (and other States) with these provisions in their laws and regulations are in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, as courts have determined that the States are subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. This is something new, and weakens the arguments of many Californians, and hoplophobes and hoploclasts throughout the States.
Let us look at this more closely.
Really? (Read on!)
Wikipedia tells us this: “California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[7] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California’s restrictive gun laws are constitutional, because the state’s constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However, U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the Second Amendment applies to all states within the Union, and many of California’s gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.[8] Additionally, California law heavily restricts the sale and possession of other items regarded as dangerous weapons, including but not limited to: certain knives, swords, clubs, explosives, fireworks, bows and arrows, slingshots, spears, and nunchucks.[9]
“The Constitution of California does not contain a provision explicitly guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. Article 1, Section 1, of the California Constitution implies a right to self-defense (without specifically mentioning a right to keep and bear arms) and defense of property, by stating, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.””
Clearly we see here a major problem with California for the past decades. Theoretically, with the Federal 2nd Amendment, a place like California doesn’t need an explicit guarantee of a God-given freedom. And now even the Master of California seems to be worried about that. So he wants the rest of the States to play the California game as the Feds and too many States have done for years on environmental laws and regulations, car mileage, and dozens of other things.
So paradoxically, is not Gavin Newsom standing up for the traditional, freedom-promoting interpretation of the US Constitution’s Second Amendment?
Let’s throw that back in his face, and that of his fellow hoplophobes and hoploclasts. Again and again.
Regarding that sign in the second picture:
Do gun safety laws work? Absolutely! But not in the way Newsom and his fellow hoploclasts claim. What do gun safety laws do?
- They disarm peaceful and law abiding citizens, leaving them defenseless against armed and powerful criminals.
- They create “gun-free” zones where cops and school authorities create free-fire zones for madmen who want to kill children and teachers.
- They reinforce the idea that government – specifically armed government employees – must be submitted to, and that unlike other people, are not subject to any temptations regarding aggression or abusing the power given to them.
What gun safety laws do not do?
- Take guns away from criminals
- Prevent criminals from having guns
- Reduce crime rates
- Prevent suicides
- Prevent murders
- Keep people from killing other people
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.
The Price of Liberty 
Gavin Newsom – Defender of the 2nd Amendment?
Gavin Newsom, His Highness the High Kommisar of California, has proposed a new “28th” Constitutional Amendment, to be prepared by a Constitutional Convention. According to this video, the Amendment would feature 4 keys: (1) prohibiting purchase of any gun by anyone under age 21, (2) requiring a “reasonable” waiting period before a person can take possession of a gun they have bought, (3) mandate “universal” background checks, and (4) prevent “civilians” from owning “assault weapons.” (Never mind defining these things: His Highness and his minions in the constitutional convention will do that for you.)
Now, before we all blow our tops, consider what Newsom has done by calling for a Constitutional Amendment that would modify the 2nd Amendment. (Or frankly, mostly negate it.)
The governor has tacitly admitted that the State of California (and other States) with these provisions in their laws and regulations are in violation of the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, as courts have determined that the States are subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. This is something new, and weakens the arguments of many Californians, and hoplophobes and hoploclasts throughout the States.
Let us look at this more closely.
Really? (Read on!)
Wikipedia tells us this: “California has no provision in its state constitution that explicitly guarantees an individual right to keep and bear arms.[7] The California Supreme Court has maintained that most of California’s restrictive gun laws are constitutional, because the state’s constitution does not explicitly guarantee private citizens the right to purchase, possess, or carry firearms. However, U.S. Supreme Court decisions of Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) established that the Second Amendment applies to all states within the Union, and many of California’s gun laws are now being challenged in the federal courts.[8] Additionally, California law heavily restricts the sale and possession of other items regarded as dangerous weapons, including but not limited to: certain knives, swords, clubs, explosives, fireworks, bows and arrows, slingshots, spears, and nunchucks.[9]
“The Constitution of California does not contain a provision explicitly guaranteeing an individual right to keep and bear arms. Article 1, Section 1, of the California Constitution implies a right to self-defense (without specifically mentioning a right to keep and bear arms) and defense of property, by stating, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.””
Clearly we see here a major problem with California for the past decades. Theoretically, with the Federal 2nd Amendment, a place like California doesn’t need an explicit guarantee of a God-given freedom. And now even the Master of California seems to be worried about that. So he wants the rest of the States to play the California game as the Feds and too many States have done for years on environmental laws and regulations, car mileage, and dozens of other things.
So paradoxically, is not Gavin Newsom standing up for the traditional, freedom-promoting interpretation of the US Constitution’s Second Amendment?
Let’s throw that back in his face, and that of his fellow hoplophobes and hoploclasts. Again and again.
Regarding that sign in the second picture:
Do gun safety laws work? Absolutely! But not in the way Newsom and his fellow hoploclasts claim. What do gun safety laws do?
What gun safety laws do not do?
Share this:
About TPOL Nathan
Follower of Christ Jesus (a christian), Pahasapan (resident of the Black Hills), Westerner, Lover of Liberty, Free-Market Anarchist, Engineer, Army Officer, Husband, Father, Historian, Writer, Evangelist. Successor to Lady Susan (Mama Liberty) at TPOL.