A joint resolution introduced in the California state legislature, SJR 7, is very interesting, not because of what it is trying to do (which we'll get into shortly), but because of how it is trying to do it.
The resolution is for an Article V convention to introduce an amendment to the Constitution to place limits on the Second Amendment.
The Convention of States movement recently celebrated its ten-year anniversary. Yes, folks have been working for a solid decade to pass a resolution in enough states to convene an Article V Convention of States for the purpose of offering amendments to the Constitution. The amendment proposals would fall into one of three categories:
- imposing fiscal/budgetary constraints on Congress;
- imposing limits on the terms of federal positions (perhaps both elected and unelected);
- reining in the scope and influence of the federal government, returning things back to the original intent expressed in Article I Section 8.
Over the years, fear-mongering, far-left organizations have claimed that an Article V convention would be ineffective, that it would be dangerous, and that it could not keep to a controlled process. In short, that it would be a very bad idea. One article put out by Common Cause states things quite succinctly:
The unknowns surrounding a constitutional convention pose an unacceptable risk, particularly in the current polarized political climate.
These calls for a constitutional convention represent the most serious threat to our democracy flying almost completely under the radar.
Simply put, an Article V constitutional convention is a dangerous and uncontrollable process that would put Americans’ constitutional rights up for grabs.
Many people remain staunchly opposed to the idea of convening an Article V convention. And now, out of left field (pun intended), we have a joint resolution introduced by zealous legislators in Sacramento, with the full-blown encouragement and support of Governor Newsom. The sole purpose of this resolution? To make modifications to the Second Amendment. This is despite the fact that a 2021 McLaughlin poll indicates a fairly solid majority of Americans support their God-given right to keep and bear arms.
So what's going on here?
Let's consider a handful of relevant facts.
Fact #1: Those introducing this resolution want their voter base to understand that they're working oh so hard to keep everyone safe from the scourge of gun violence. Never mind that Chicago, which operates under some of the most stringent gun control laws anywhere in the country, continues to see a ridiculously high gun murder rate.
Fact #2: Those on the left know full well that making use of Article V will take a good deal of time to carry out, and that it's not something that can be done overnight. The COS grassroots has been at this for ten years now, and we're still in need of fifteen more states agreeing to the resolution to reach the actual convention stage. The process is not for the faint of heart.
Fact #3: Unlike an amendment to introduce term limits or appropriate budgetary guard rails, tinkering with the Second Amendment is not a widely popular idea. I don't have any special powers of political punditry, but even I would have no trouble coming up with a list of 13 states that this resolution will have difficulty passing in (27 states currently allow constitutional/permitless carry).
Fact #4: It's no secret that the governor of California has his eyes firmly set on the White House. Again, what better way to fire up the base than to be able to point to this resolution as something concrete being done toward gun control? It doesn't matter that it can't pass across the country for the time being, it just matters that the imaging and narrative prove helpful in a bid for the presidency.
Fact #5: The 2024 election is less than 15 months away.
Most liberty-minded Americans will not agree with what this joint resolution proposes. Not in the least. But in the grand scheme of things, with the political calculus being what it is, there might be bigger fish to fry. It might be a good idea to take a step back and consider just why all of a sudden the left appears to want to embrace what Article V of the Constitution has to offer. Political opportunism? A clear possibility. Recognition that Article V provides an effective tool for states to exert power? Without a doubt.
Perhaps we should just look at this as a cautionary tale.
If you wish to express your opposition to this resolution using email or phone, visit our Oppose Senate Joint Resolution 7 page.
To Liberty!
