The nationwide political stunt prompted by California Gov. Gavin Newsom continues this week with the state legislature playing along.
In June, the governor announced a new effort to use Article V to enact gun restrictions through a new constitutional amendment – while claiming to protect the Second Amendment.
In a video with now over 12 million views, Newsom shared a misleading talking point: "The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms -- while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact."
This unique and deceptive messaging from Newsom's team conveys the idea that the Second Amendment will not be harmed. In reality, the language of the Second Amendment wouldn't change, only the ability to bear arms would completely change. This backward, upside-down narrative was reiterated this week by Democrat state Senator Aisha Wahab, who introduced an Article V resolution to the Senate in coordination with the governor's effort.
"This particular resolution actually protects the Second Amendment, but also ensures that states have the right to enforce and create their own laws," Wahab said in an interview.
This narrative has clearly been put on repeat. The self-contradiction is presumably intended to create confusion, as it successfully does. They essentially are saying, 'We'll protect your gun rights while confiscating your gun rights.' As they say one thing, they will do the exact opposite.
SEE ALSO: Can Newsom do math? Phony Article V endeavor to restrict gun rights proves unattainable
Regardless of the puzzlement, it's overwhelmingly understood that this effort has no chance of succeeding. Wahab said she thinks the effort will save lives, while simultaneously calling it a "tall order." It's indeed a tall order, more like an impossible order.
To call a convention under Article V of the Constitution, 34 states must agree to meet. Currently, 27 states have Constitutional Carry – permitless carry. Mathematically speaking, it’s impossible to ever reach a convention on this matter.
As for the Convention of States movement, California's attempt offers tremendous benefits. It shows that one of America’s top leftists knows that the COS effort cannot be used to impose any gun control or negatively affect the Second Amendment. Additionally, the California application clearly recognizes that the convention would have to be limited to the stated purpose. In fact, it uses the same language as the COS applications: "this application shall be void if ever used at any stage to consider any constitutional amendments on subjects other than those specified."
The major difference between COS and Newsom's Article V effort is that restricting federal overreach is a bipartisan issue, and confiscating guns is not.
SEE ALSO: Gavin Newsom Begs For Attention
Take a moment to sign the COS petition below to support Convention of States in our effort to rein in the power of the federal government through term limits, budget requirements, and limits to its size and jurisdiction.
