In particular, state Sen. Scott Weiner has a massive problem with Newsom's efforts.

Last summer, Gov. Gavin Newsom made a splashy announcement on a nationally televised morning show.

As millions of Americans tuned in over their breakfast and coffee, California’s Democratic governor said he was fed up with Congress’ inability to pass gun safety laws and was taking matters into his own hands, calling for a new constitutional amendment to restrict firearms.

The proposal was more of a swashbuckling play for attention than a plan with any rational chance of success. The last — and only — time the states gathered for a constitutional convention was in 1787, when George Washington had yet to be elected as the United States’ first president.

Still, California’s Democratic lawmakers overwhelmingly approved Newsom’s proposal, and formally called for a convention to amend the Constitution to ban the sale of assault weapons, require universal background checks on gun purchases and raise the minimum age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21.

But a handful of Democrats did not go along with the plan. A progressive senator from San Francisco was the most vocal critic, arguing that a constitutional convention could wind up empowering a conservative agenda. And now, with the country in flux and a former president known for defying the laws of political gravity and pulverizing long-standing norms soon to be sworn back into office, he’s launched a new push to blunt Newsom’s flashy maneuver and rescind California’s call to amend the Constitution.

“There is no way that I want California to accidentally help these extremists trigger a constitutional convention where they, you know, rewrite the Constitution to restrict voting rights, to eliminate reproductive health access and so forth,” said Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

Of course, let's understand Weiner for a bit.

This is a man who wanted to remove a law that made it a felony to knowingly pass on HIV. He's such an absolute statist that he wanted to make car manufacturers build cars in such a way that they absolutely cannot speed citing safety concerns.

To say he's ideologically consistent would be laughable. I don't like the guy because it's clear that he's part of the crowd that thinks everything they like should be legal and everything they dislike should be banned, which I have a massive issue with.

But he's the one who brings up a very good point about this whole constitutional amendment thing.

See, if we end up with a constitutional convention, we might well end up with something very different from what Newsom wants.

In fact, it's unlikely Newsom's proposals will be taken seriously except by a handful of other states, and we already have an idea of just which states that will be. Most of the other states have a pro-gun lean. They're not going to amend the Constitution to permit gun control.

If there's a gun amendment that comes out of such a convention, it might well be one that clarifies that "shall not be infringed" means that our rights shall not be infringed by anyone no matter what arguments they present.

And Weiner is right that a whole lot of other things might come out of such a convention that has nothing to do with gun control.

When you open that box, you don't get to decide just what gets discussed. Anything is on the table, which means a lot of things Californians aren't going to like. While Weiner's language about it is ridiculous--how is it "extremist" to actually want to follow the Constitution in the first place?--he's making a valid point that most in California didn't pay attention to.

Which means there's a bit of a fight.

However, as things stand, that ship has set sail. Or has it?

Weiner's proposal is to repeal the call for a convention. He fears the incoming Trump administration will roll with it and all the horrible things that many fear will come to pass.

However, it should be remembered that anything that comes out of a convention still has to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. That's still a tall order for any amendment.