Debunking anti-2nd Amendment Article V myths

Two months ago, Governor Gavin Newsom of California touted plans for using Article V of the Constitution to “enshrine… common sense gun safety measures,” creating some confusion as to the difference between Newsom’s proposal and Convention of States Action’s. Although Newsom insisted that his proposed amendment would leave the Second Amendment intact, critics quickly pointed out that this would not be the case, as any federal attempt to restrict Americans’ right to bear arms would be contrary to the Founders’ original design and intent. Because a vast majority of Convention of States supporters are also firm supporters of the Second Amendment, and the organization itself is committed to Constitutional Originalism, this understandably became a point of concern.

Ultimately, Newsom’s resolution is completely unrelated to ours (and objectionable to us, as we are proudly pro-Second Amendment). However, it still begs the question: is an Article V convention a threat to gun rights? The answer is a resounding no. A few simple facts prove this.

1. Thirty-four states would never call a convention limited to considering a gun control amendment

Nineteen states have called for an Article V convention under our application, which is limited to restricting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, imposing fiscal restraints, and placing term limits on federal officials. As our resolution only allows amendments that reduce federal power, an anti-Second Amendment proposal, which would expand the federal government, would not be germane.

However, we must also note that 34 states (the amount needed to trigger a convention) would never consider Newsom’s proposal, which is to restrict gun rights. How do we know that? Because America is a majority "constitutional carry" nation, meaning a majority of the states (27) allow permitless concealed carry of a firearm. Advocates of this position say it is simply what the Constitution mandates, as the Second Amendment affirms that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” None of these states would consent to a convention whose sole purpose is to take away a right they otherwise affirm. For this reason, as Brianna Kraemer pointed out in the Daily Caller, “there is mathematically no way Newsom can ever achieve the required 34-state threshold.”

“Gov. Newsom’s attempt to use Article V to propose the 28th Amendment is purely a political stunt with no feasibility,” Kraemer argued. “He’s catering to the opinions of coastal elites that think they can dominate the nation’s politics, but as he surely knows, that’s not possible when taking into account the avidly pro-Second Amendment regions of America. It appears to be more of a shot at earning national media coverage while convincing pro-gun control advocates who aren’t familiar with Article V that there’s a real chance – there’s most definitely not.”

2. There’s even less chance the states would ratify any amendment that passed out of Newsom’s hypothetical convention

As already established, the California governor knows he has zero chance of ever calling his bogus convention. But what if, against all odds, either he did, or a “gun safety” amendment somehow slipped into another Article V convention? In that unlikely scenario, the amendment itself would still never be ratified. While it takes 34 states to call a convention, it takes 38 to approve anything that passes out of the convention. This means a mere 13 states could stop—simply by not ratifying—any unfavorable amendment, and considering that the vast majority of states permit constitutional carry, Newsom’s proposed amendment would assuredly be shot down.

3. Newsom’s proposal dismisses skeptic’s most disingenuous fears about an actual Article V convention

Convention of States skeptics, including the John Birch Society (JBS), often allege that there is no such thing as a limited Article V convention, hence their debunked fears about a “runaway convention.” At the time of this writing, JBS still parrots on its website the myth that a convention might be used for “getting rid of the Second Amendment.”

If this were true, however, why would Gavin Newsom start his own efforts to call a convention rather than simply riding on ours? It’s because he at least has the honesty to admit that “getting rid of the Second Amendment” is an impossibility under the Convention of States resolution.

This puts JBS in the awkward place of being less honest about the Article V process than even the far left. Taking into account the crucial facts that it takes 34 states to call a convention, the convention would be limited to the three aforementioned subject areas, and that 38 states must then ratify any passed amendment, Washington knows COS is nothing but a threat to its power—which is why they are vehemently opposed to us.

Ultimately, as Brianna Kraemer pointed out, this is nothing more than a disingenuous attempt for Gov. Gavin Newsom to garner attention. Nevertheless, it is a nuanced issue, making it all the more important for self-governing citizens to stay informed. 

In the end, we know the Founders gave us Article V for a reason: the time has come to use it, not to destroy their work, but to uphold it. Not to undermine the Second Amendment, but to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is safeguarded for generations to come.