Gov. Gavin Newsom apparently decided that the Second Amendment really doesn't allow for gun control, which is why he proposed a constitutional amendment that would codify a handful of gun control laws.

California has already voted to support a constitutional convention, joining a number of states that have already called for one, albeit for different reasons. California is the only state calling for a convention to push gun control.

But California is often a leader on anti-gun efforts. That meant others would likely follow, right?

Well, they haven't, and that has some in the Golden State curious.

The California Legislature in September approved a resolution in support, and Newsom said 33 other states must do likewise to call a constitutional convention and consider the amendment. But even among the 18 other U.S. states with legislatures led by Newsom’s Democratic Party, none has done so.

Political observers aren’t surprised, noting the nation’s political landscape, amendment rules and the risks that could come with Newsom’s proposed path of calling a constitutional convention.

“For the foreseeable future, there is zero chance of a constitutional convention that would draft a gun control amendment,” said Claremont McKenna College politics professor John J. Pitney Jr., noting Republicans control 59 percent of state legislative chambers. “If they were to support a constitutional convention at all, its purpose would be to expand gun rights. And liberal legislators are right to be leery of a runaway convention. It might try to rewrite the whole Constitution and do things such as declaring Christianity the national religion.”

A state Senate leader in neighboring Oregon said no one has reached out to him or the governor’s office about a resolution supporting Newsom’s proposed amendment, but that the threat of a “runaway” constitutional convention is a concern.

“I don’t see us taking it up,” said Oregon Sen. Floyd Prozanski, a Democrat who chairs the state’s Senate Judiciary Committee, arguing other legislative paths appear more fruitful. “The last thing I’d want is to open up something where we can’t put the lid back on the can.”

There's absolutely nothing about this that is shocking.

If there's a constitutional convention, there's nothing to prevent the convention from taking up any number of measures. As noted, most states are actually fairly red, which means there would be a lot of proposals that Democrats would rather never see the light of day.

Yet because of the fact that most states are fairly red, it also means that a gun control amendment isn't likely to get passed, either.

See, Newsom is laboring under this idea that most people support these gun control policies. Even if that's true, we don't create constitutional amendments by popular vote. It doesn't matter if 50 percent or 90 percent of the American people support these concepts. The proposal has to go through the process, and that doesn't start with a popular vote.

Plus, I think he'd find that even the popular support for such things to be lacking for a constitutional amendment. The truth is that a lot of people aren't inclined to amend the Constitution as a general thing. Even if they like the idea, they're not fond of an amendment in part because they want the courts to review it. That doesn't happen with amendments.

Newsom thought he had a play. He thought he'd done something big with his proposed amendment.

Instead, he's trying to lead where literally no one wants to follow.