California’s legislature has formally called for a constitutional convention, all in hopes of passing a 28th Amendment that would codify gun control within the Constitution itself.
Most people know it’s a longshot at best. Most states just aren’t going to be that eager to see such an amendment make it out of a convention.
Others recognize that you can’t limit the purpose of a constitutional convention. While California might want gun control out of one, how many other states might prefer to skip that entirely and embrace other measures that folks in the Golden State wouldn’t be thrilled with?
Regardless, it seems at least some think it’s a good idea and they’re urging Connecticut to join California.
Gun violence seems to have become inevitable in American society. The prevalent use of guns to cause significant harm and death in this country has skyrocketed in recent years. The constant news of gun violence from the media comes in such quick succession now that Americans no longer catch their breath. A new tragedy holds the public’s attention, and disheartening thoughts hold in our hearts.
While all of these measures have been implemented with success, California Gov. Gavin Newsom recently tried a new approach. He introduced a proposed 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution on June 8, 2023. This Amendment includes an 11% excise tax on retailers and manufacturers for gun and ammunition sales, generating $160 million annually for school safety and gun violence intervention programs.
We as healthcare providers, ask and plead with Connecticut’s state representatives and neighboring state representatives to back Gov. Newsom’s initiative on the 28th Amendment. It is crucial that we remain committed to continuously striving for policies that will prevent such tragic events from happening in the future.
As healthcare providers, though, I’d advise the authors to stick to healthcare, because they clearly don’t understand the world they’re currently stepping into.
After all, it’s pretty clear that all they’re seeing is what they think could be done with regard to gun control, but they haven’t thought about all the other potential amendments that might come out of a convention. Perhaps one explicitly banning Medicare or Medicaid, for example.
The authors spend a great deal of time talking about all the supposed good California’s gun control laws have done, they don’t acknowledge that the state also had a buttload of mass shootings, too, well more than the next two largest states–both of which, it should be remembered, are pro-gun.
Now, I won’t be shocked to see Connecticut lawmakers embrace this call for a convention. I won’t necessarily lose any sleep if a convention were to happen, in part because we know how few delegates would actually vote for such an amendment, much less see enough states ratify them.
Then again, I actually understand the process and the politics surrounding gun control beyond the petulance of those who think their one frame of reference represents the totality of the issue such as anti-gun healthcare providers.
Gun control isn’t the answer and it doesn’t matter how much they wish otherwise.