Newsom isn't my favorite for bringing the Democratic Party leadership into the next generation. I hadn't heard of this before.
A convention is a meeting of delegates elected by state legislatures, right? So Newsom is proposing a body where, what, 3/4 of representatives would be Republican? Is he dumb enough to think his voters are dumb enough not to see this?
1: Who else is there? Harris, but she got stomped in the primaries, right?
Someone got stabbed in front of my kid's school this morning, so, you know, guns aren't the problem. /s
So the way I read the article, the bill has been forwarded from a committee to the California Senate. If it gets approved, and if 33 other states pass identical bills, then there's a constitutional convention for the whole country with an unusually narrow agenda. Do I have it right?
If so, agreed with Minivet, this is pointless. Marginally more likely to do harm than good, because I don't see how an agenda like that could be binding, but very unlikely to do anything at all.
Proposing an amendment to the constitution does not require a convention, (right?), so what's the advantage of an actual convention?
It has a chance of getting the support of people who want to hijack the agenda of the convention. I suspect that would be bad.
Heebie:
1. Defund the police.
2. Suffer a decade or two of spiralling wars among drug dealers, vigilantes, and terrorists.
3. Refund the police.
4. Gun control.
2 is right, he's an idiot. It's bad politics nationwide as a message bill, and disastrous on the merits if it ever managed to go through.
2.last: I left that as an exercise for the reader.
5. Send your excess guns back in time to murder the construction crew outside my window who were supposed to finish the fucking road like three hours ago.
Moby do you have Taylor Swift IMAX tickets yet?
Eras tour coming to AMC theaters in mid-October, tickets already on sale today. $19.89 plus tax and fees for adults, $13.13 for kids. Took me about 10 minutes to get through the line and wait for the page to load.
I've been hoping for this all year, has the in-person fun and outfits of going to the concert but at a hundredth the price. And you're closer to the screen than you would be in the stadium.
I just enjoy sitting at home and listening to songs about revenge and murder.
Ooooh! That would appeal to some of the Geebies! I'll kindly overlook your appallingly off-topic left turn due to its benefit to me personally.
There is a place for you.
The Geebies like to look their enemies in the eyes.
The churlish "you can't make me" element in current gun culture is strong enough that maybe the solution is a series of public service announcements about proper gun storage. If enough NRA members get shot by their toddlers, we can fix this.
Now, if that were meant to morph into language giving Congress rational-basis authority to regulate, I'd be okay with it.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. All persons keeping or bearing arms shall be part of the Militia. Congress shall have the power to impose such regulations of the Militia as it shall see fit."
So anyone can buy a gun. But if you have a gun, you automatically become part of the militia, and you have to follow the rules governing the militia. So if Congress says "four hours compulsory marksmanship training every Saturday for all militia members" then that's you. Don't like it? Get rid of your gun.
I have concerns about encouraging the "militia" part of the 2nd Amendment. The spate of murder is bad. Militarism among the gun nuts is likely worse.
I like 18 in concept but think the trouble is that Swiss-style regulations would probably be challenged as in conflict with the remaining first sentence. If someone is mentally unfit, are they still in? If a regulation is to store guns at a central location, does that conflict with the right to "keep"? If someone violates any regulation, does kicking them out violate "all persons keeping or bearing arms shall be a part of the Militia"?
There would need to be some way to emphasize that the last sentence takes precedence. And that would make it harder to pass, although again probably possible at some point.
Maybe "Congress may impose any regulation it sees fit in the interest of an orderly militia or public safety" would be enough? Although possibly no language would be good enough for the current judiciary so flipping the Court is another necessary-not-sufficient component.
If a regulation is to store guns at a central location, does that conflict with the right to "keep"?
Yes, and you wouldn't be able to require militia members to store guns somewhere that wasn't their home, because they have a right to keep and bear arms, and "keep" clearly means "keep at home". However Congress could require that militia weapons be stored in a secure armoury with adequate fire suppression, a two-hour lock on the door, and a 24-hour guard. That seems like a sensible regulation for a well-regulated militia to have. If you've got one of those in your house, you're fine (but the police will be doing unannounced inspections to check). Similarly, universal registration of firearms would be a very sensible regulation. An organisation should track its assets!
If someone violates any regulation, does kicking them out violate "all persons keeping or bearing arms shall be a part of the Militia"?
It's already AFAIK perfectly legal and accepted by both sides to deprive convicted felons of their right to bear arms (even though I would say this very clearly infringes the exact right that the text clearly says shall not be infringed). I don't see why you shouldn't extend that to say that serious breaches of militia regulations can be punished with a dishonourable discharge, which, like a felony conviction, deprives you of your right to bear arms.
If someone is mentally unfit, are they still in?
If they're mentally incapable of following militia regulations, then they're out.
The Michigan militia will have that security set up far more easily than normal people. And the police will be far less willing to check it.
The 2nd Amendment didn't mean an individual right to shove your guns in everyone's faces until what, 20 years ago? The jurisprudence is more of an issue than the text.
24: but they've got lots and lots of guns under the present system anyway, so at least it wouldn't make matters any worse. And, remember, you can discharge them from the militia if they fail to attend their annual Diversity and Equality training.
Also, is the Michigan Militia even still around?
Any "militia" talk that doesn't include state control is going to result in local private armies. Given that Texas has the National Guard shooting people across the border, close state control is not going to solve the problem of having independent militaries wandering around. America has problems, but recreating 80s Lebanon is not an improvement.
27: How does ajay's framework not address that? If all militia is federally regulated, fedgov does not have to allow any chains of command outside its express control. Just saying "there is a militia" is not the same as saying "okay everyone, go wild, you can be your own militia".
Why bother? That seems much more politically fraught than requiring registration plus outlawing handguns and assault rifles.
Which, to be clear, I don't think it's possible either. A stronger Democratic majority in Congress can add background checks plus put back assault rifle bans and related. This is difficult, but not unlikely. If the Supreme Court tosses it, that's improving the case for court reform/packing. Which is more difficult, but looking at abortion seems to be a net vote getter.
Just saying "there is a militia" is not the same as saying "okay everyone, go wild, you can be your own militia".
Exactly. You can't have a gun and *not* be in the militia, in this framework, and the militia is regulated by Congress. Sure, you can go and set up your own weird little gun cult and be in that as well, but it's open to Congress to say "no militia member may join any organisation whose avowed intent is armed opposition to the US government".
Because I think it might be possible to thread the needle with "the Second Amendment stays intact, we're just clarifying it includes responsibility and regulations." If I were waving a wand, I'd abolish the amendment period, but that's not going to happen even with a far better electorate.
At this point, I think SCOTUS would completely overturn any assault weapon ban. They've now got the rest of the courts doing "was this ever a law before 1810?" analysis and when the answer is yes, saying "but was it common?". They might be about to strike down switchblade bans, FFS!
I had thought that because the thread started with criticizing Newson's proposal as impractical, we were going to try to think of something that might be more workable.
"the Second Amendment stays intact, we're just clarifying it includes responsibility and regulations."
That sounds like a good start. I just don't see how focusing on "militia" helps that in the slightest.
Passing laws requiring guns to be stored safely and gun thefts to reported to the police forces Republican candidates and officials to take very unpopular stances and increases the chance that you can pass more gun laws. Arguing that you need a join a federally controlled militia to own a gun allows those Republican candidates to campaign on stances that are support by majorities of voters in most swing states.
I agree it could be attacked on those grounds. But I'm reading the concept as not so much "you have to join a militia" but "our militia is our armed citizenry, so having a gun means subjecting yourself to regulations for the greater good". I think that could sway people. Conceivably.
It's not going to sway anyone. And a small but non-trivial portion of American gun owners agrees that the militia is our armed citizenry. And they are fucked in the head, openly contemptuous of society, and inclined to think they have some authority over others as "militia."
Yeah, ajay's proposal makes sense in theory but I don't think it would be politically workable in practice.
They've now got the rest of the courts doing "was this ever a law before 1810?" analysis
Except for the 2nd Amendment, an "as it was before 1810 jurisprudence" that wasn't just a veil over contemporary right wing politics would allow lots of gun control.
Anyway, Newsom's politics seem especially dumb when he tries purely publicity stunts.
Plus his hair looks like the bad guy's hair in an 80s movie.
Presumably the reason Newsom's proposal goes the convention route is that the other way to propose a constitutional amendment requires action by Congress. It's still dumb and unworkable though.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I have been known to point out that the First Amendment would mean something entirely different if it said, "Well-regulated media being necessary to a free State, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press."
And let us remember that even without that language, freedom of speech and the press are far from absolute, as Alex Jones discovered to his sorrow.
34: Newsom is engaged in theater, not a serious effort to control guns. And (as others have said) it's crappy theater.
I was struck this morning reading this article--The Volunteer Moms Poring Over Archives to Prove Clarence Thomas Wrong--just how weird and wrong things have gotten. And the effort is of course doomed to failure of course; Clarence et al don't give two shits about any actual historical fact other than when it provides words that could conceivably support their positions.
47 to 41.
Just because a lot of the Founding Fathers owned slaves, people think it makes sense to assume they were as ignorant, irrational and racist as modern Republicans. Not always!
I have always wondered what the gun nut position on nukes is. How is it consistent with the Constitution to infringe my right to wield a hydrogen bomb?
Nuclear weapons don't kill people. People kill people.
Gavin Newsome is evil but he isn't stupid. The greatest challenge his 2028 presidential primary campaign faces is that no one knows him, and he doesn't know anyone, outside of California. The modest gun control he proposes is popular with lots of democratic primary voters, especially in blue states, who are the people he needs to win promaries. Initiating a political campaign that requires organizing, fundraising, and spending all across America will give him an opportunity to meet state legislators, and connect him to activists interested in the issue. Also gives him something to do in 2027 when he's term limited. If the plan works, the state 28th Amendment Committees will become Democrats for Newsome Committeees. He'll have to step back from gun control for the general election, but one problem at a time.
47: Hoo boy. I'm not entirely dismissive of this instinct: politics is power, and the other side doesn't care about facts, but our side does, and although (or maybe because) swing voters are incoherent, facts are sometimes persuasive.
BUT this sort of effort is so pointless. Is "magical thinking" too strong? All you need to do is let experts who have the facts at their fingertips rebut the risible claims and then cite them. Anything more rigorous is pure wasted effort, especially in a situation like this, where SCOTUS is completely impervious to any kind of process or appeal.
Like, the 14th amendment disqualification stuff is pretty much a pipe dream, but there's a plausible path where sympathetic parties with power could use it to good effect. There's no world where 2 Republican justices flip their votes because of "new" facts, or where some other party invalidates the ruling because it's factually incorrect*. But it's largely the old "we must do something, this is something, so we must do it."
*TBH, I would love a norm--or explicit regulation--where rulings that cite factually incorrect information are invalidated. Who finds those facts is, of course, a rather important question, but I think it's mostly new that SCOTUS rulings are flatly counterfactual, like the one where they describe the football coach as uttering a silent, private prayer while in possession of a photo of him leading his team in an on-field, out-loud prayer. What's next, a 2A ruling that cites the constitutional verbiage "an unregulated militia..."?
TBH, I would love a norm--or explicit regulation--where rulings that cite factually incorrect information are invalidated.
Speaking of pipe dreams.
He'll have to step back from gun control for the general election, but one problem at a time.
TBH I think the proposal is so anodyne that he won't really have to step back. I mean, maybe he has some line about how "speaking with voters from across this great land, I learned that..." in order to deflect whatever part of it polls worst, but the kinds of specific things quoted in that proposed amendment all poll well above 50%. Drum says things have to poll above 67% to have real support, but IMO that's more true of things that are low profile/salience, and therefore people haven't heard the counterarguments. I don't think Americans are unaware of the arguments around guns.
Anyway, I think you're basically right about the cynicism of the whole thing, but I also think it's worthwhile, in a framework of Dems picking a candidate in 2028, for liberals to point at this idea and make clear it's stupid. In this case it's not a waste of effort to debate it more seriously than it deserves, because it's an important thing to understand about one of the candidates.
Just repeal the second and let the legislature sort it out. Probably we get something more reasonable than Heller.
55: That's the problem, that would be ideal technically and for policy but would probably get like 20% support. Normies don't want to just repeal part of the Bill of Rights, no matter how abused it is, or indeed how ill-conceived it was from the beginning. That's why the focus on making it more symbolic, like it was before Heller. Through jurisprudence and or through amendment.
My guess was exactly right, or I remembered this poll somehow.
I'd like to limit who can purchase a gun, require responsible ownership, and limit certain weapons that are too militaristic, but I support people having the right to own guns for reasonable self-defense, hunting, and turning off the TV when something really bad is on.
I want to note that my boy Wiener was the only one in committee brave enough to not vote for it citing the Common Cause grounds (the one Republican voted no, Wiener abstained). Hope he's Pelosi's successor!
and turning off the TV when something really bad is on.
Our most sacred right!
"It will lead you into some strange pursuits
Lead you to the land of forbidden fruits
It will scramble up your head and drag your brain about
Sometimes you gotta do like Elvis did and shoot the damn thing out"
Robert Goulet didn't even take it personally.
58: "reasonable self defence" is a terrible, ridiculous reason to own a gun. I mean honestly. Hunting, pest control, target shooting. That's it, those are the good reasons.
How else are you suppose to shoot people?
Supposedly, they are going to get bow hunters to cull the deer in the city parks. So I guess bows are an option.
This is a depressing waste of political effort.
Of course it's important. But if you're going to all this trouble why not put in real ban.
Or a RIGHT TO PRIVACY? Or a right to bodily integrity? Or ERA or something guaranteeing equality?
This just seems like some regulations or something.
Seems like resume building. Why do we get politicians like this all the time? Is politics just too rough unless you're some kind of narcissist?
Isn't the point of 18 that the new militia would be administered by the DOD National Guard bureau, with everything that goes with it? So sure, you can opt into whatever super cool badge collector adventure training you can handle but you also have to file all your environmental impact and DEI forms, bash the square under Master Sergeant Sanchez, show up to fill sandbags during floods...
66: No, it might be that inconvenient (alevai), but it would likely need to be some new hierarchy.
Not having caught up on the thread, my proposal for, not gun control, but the tilting of the small-arms balance of power away from the crazy people, is to create A Well-Ordered Militia. This would be a Swiss-ish reserve system in which basically the whole military-age population is at all times no more than, say, an hour from a safely stored set of personal equipment they're trained to use. On the one hand of course this a road to Lebanon; but on the other it blocks the road to the October Revolution, where a tiny minority is able to seize power in virtue of being armed.
This is of course insane, but then so is the USA.
Newsom is a galactically feckless person. He's not evil or necessarily awful; he's just utterly devoid of deeply held convictions. This proposal is perfectly characteristic of his lack of feck. (Should it come to it, I'll vote for him for president as I have every previous Democratic candidate: simultaneously holding my nose and very proud not to be voting for his opponent.
68: My suspicion is that between Trump and Tree of Life, there are a lot of people around here who have guns who would have recoiled or laughed at the idea in May 2016. I don't have a count or anything, but it's come up in conversation and I've seen a fair number of people on Reddit ask which gun range to go to if you don't want to hear politics from the gun people.
I don't really think the death penalty is a very good deterrent, but the Tree of Life murderer did get the death penalty. Death row is in Indiana, which might be a deterrent. We all have to die at some point, but Indiana is avoidable.
I've seen a fair number of people on Reddit ask which gun range to go to if you don't want to hear politics from the gun people
Haven't gone looking yet, but I've been wanting to do learn how to use a gun without having to own a gun, or at least without having it at home (if renting gun storage is a thing).
You can store a pistol behind the toilet tank in any Italian restaurant. Just ask.
he's just utterly devoid of deeply held convictions
So far as I can tell, he is solidly, thoroughly, personally committed to some really crappy water policy and fuck if I can understand why.
I've heard from someone reliable that his administration is doing good work on health policy and I am jealous.
10 U.S.C. section 246(a): able bodied male citizens between 17 and 45 are already in the militia.
"my proposal for, not gun control, but the tilting of the small-arms balance of power away from the crazy people, is to create A Well-Ordered Militia."
But this isn't a problem that needs solving. There is already an organisation that has tilted the small-arms balance of power away from the crazy people. It is called the United States Army.
77: that would be open to challenge on equality grounds. My proposal would a) remove discrimination based on age, sex and ability and b) enshrine it in the constitution. Anyone who owns a gun would be in the militia. (Yes, even 12-year-olds. If you have a problem with child soldiers, then you should have a problem with children owning guns.)
The US Army couldn't even handle one Afghanistan's worth of crazy people with guns.
BUT this sort of effort is so pointless.
That seems excessively cynical to me.* Sure, research and scholarship aren't going to be decisive at the Supreme Court any time soon, but they are valuable nonetheless.
I agree there's a liberal tendency to be excessively enchanted by factuality, but it seems to me that the participants in this project -- and certainly MJ Stern, the Slate writer -- are keeping it all in perspective.
*If it's possible to be excessively cynical.
My suspicion is that between Trump and Tree of Life, there are a lot of people around here who have guns who would have recoiled or laughed at the idea in May 2016.
Let's all post, anonymously, the number of guns we have, and the number we had in 2016.
By "here", I meant my city/neighborhood.
81: Plausibly so, but the volume of effort seems to misalign with the potential value of the research. Like, once you've gotten to 20 clear-cut examples of pre-1810 (or whatever) gun regulation, the marginal return on the next 20 is close to zero.
I've heard more hints of gun ownership from friends/neighbors in the last 5 years than in the previous 15. But it's still a small number. OTOH, we don't socialize with that many people.
73. fa, about ten years ago I was briefly a member at Firing Line in Burbank, which I think is near you. I took a gun safety class and then went back from time to time for target practice. It was a long time ago, so I can't speak to how it is now, but back then it felt safe and not creepy -- all the employees took firearms safety protocols very seriously. I think they may even have offered lockers and storage for people who didn't want to keep their firearms at home.
"You can store a pistol behind the toilet tank in any Italian restaurant. Just ask."
It's important to ask because someone else might already have put one behind the toilet tank you're thinking of using, and that could be embarrassing. ("Oh, no, after you, I insist.")
86: Thanks! Unfortunately, next week I'm moving about an hour away. On the plus side, I don't have to move any firearms.
How is it consistent with the Constitution to infringe my right to wield a hydrogen bomb?"
Well, in 1776 there was no weapon system which could not in theory be owned by a private individual. You could own your own warship if you wanted and many people did (or at least heavily armed merchant ships, which is a distinction rather than a difference).
Conveniently, the court has found corporations to be individuals. I'm sure a joint stock company could maintain at least one super.
In the end I found Snowcrash to be a mess of a story, but the first 50-100 pages did set up a world with a number of good provocative extrapolatory elements.
As I recall an individual had a nuclear weapon, but assume some of the powerful corporations did as well.
But how did they build a train like that?
With the reactor they used to make their plutonium.
I had apparently forgotten that it is two words Snow Crash, Stephenson claims named for his term for a failure mode on early Macintosh's where the bitmap got filled with random junk.
Ken MacLeod's "The Stone Canal" deals with, among other things, the interesting concept of fractional reserve deterrence.
Initiating a political campaign that requires organizing, fundraising, and spending all across America will give him an opportunity to meet state legislators, and connect him to activists interested in the issue. Also gives him something to do in 2027 when he's term limited. If the plan works, the state 28th Amendment Committees will become Democrats for Newsome Committeees.
This sounds plausible. How say you all?
I have no idea. I'm sure if this is his plan, I'll get the fundraising emails in my spam folder.