CA Dems acknowledge banning gun ownership is unconstitutional.
California Takes a Stand on Gun Control
California made history on September 14th by officially calling for a constitutional convention to address gun control. The proposed 28th Amendment, championed by Governor Gavin Newsom, aims to raise the minimum age for gun ownership to 21, implement background checks for private transfers, enforce waiting periods, and ban assault weapons.
However, Democrats pushing for these changes may not realize the uphill battle they face. With control over only 17 states and lacking the necessary votes in Congress, amending the U.S. Constitution seems unlikely.
Gun control groups often hail California as a model for strict gun laws, but the state’s high rate of mass public shootings raises doubts. In fact, California’s per capita rate surpasses that of the rest of the country. Even Texas, with a lower rate, receives a failing grade from gun control advocates.
Since 2010, California’s mass public shooting rate has consistently been higher than Texas’ and the national average. The disparity has only worsened in recent years, with California’s rate skyrocketing.
One of the main arguments for raising the gun ownership age is the higher crime rates among 18 to 20-year-olds. However, data shows that those who pass background checks in this age group are just as law-abiding as older individuals.
While gun control advocates claim that expanded background checks would prevent mass shootings, the evidence suggests otherwise. Not a single mass public shooting in this century would have been stopped by such measures. The claim of stopping 4 million dangerous individuals from buying guns is misleading, as it refers to initial denials rather than actual prevention.
Moreover, the current background check system is flawed, often resulting in errors that disproportionately affect black and Hispanic males. Private companies would never conduct employee background checks in this manner.
Measuring Public Support For Gun Control
Gun control advocates often cite polls showing overwhelming support for expanded background checks. However, the reality is that public support is not as solid as portrayed.
A survey conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center revealed that likely voters expressed 86% support for background checks on all gun sales or transfers. However, when presented with specific scenarios, opposition to these checks emerged.
When asked about lending a handgun to a friend for self-defense or shotguns for a Boy Scout troop, respondents opposed the background checks. The demographic breakdown showed a divide between Democrats and Republicans, urban and non-urban areas, and other factors.
It is crucial to consider the implications of seemingly reasonable policies. Waiting periods, for example, may inadvertently put vulnerable individuals at risk by delaying their access to protection. Assault rifle bans also prove ineffective, as they account for a small percentage of murders and mass shootings.
While Democrats’ constitutional amendment may not gain traction, it highlights their stance on the right to self-defense and their loss in the constitutional argument.
What challenges may arise in enforcing background checks for private transfers of firearms?
Iding as those over 21. In fact, only a small fraction of crimes involving guns are committed by individuals in this age group. Therefore, raising the minimum age for gun ownership may not have a significant impact on reducing crime rates.
Another concern is the effectiveness of background checks for private transfers. While these checks may seem like a logical step to ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands, it is important to consider the practicality of enforcing such measures. Many private gun sales occur between family members or close friends, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to enforce background checks in these situations. Additionally, criminals who are determined to obtain a firearm illegally will find ways to bypass these checks through the black market or other illegal means.
Enforcing waiting periods may also pose challenges. While it is intended to prevent impulsive acts of violence, there is no guarantee that individuals who intend harm will be deterred by waiting periods. In fact, it may only inconvenience law-abiding citizens who legitimately need a firearm for self-defense.
Banning assault weapons is another controversial aspect of the proposed amendment. While it may seem like a logical step to prevent mass shootings, the definition of an assault weapon can often be subjective and open to interpretation. Additionally, it is important to note that the majority of gun crimes are committed with handguns, not assault weapons. Therefore, a ban on assault weapons may not have a significant impact on reducing overall gun violence.
It is also worth considering the potential impact on law-abiding gun owners. Many gun owners use firearms for self-defense and sport shooting, and these proposed changes may infringe upon their rights to bear arms. It is essential to balance the need for public safety with the rights and freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
While the intentions behind California’s proposed 28th Amendment are noble, it is important to critically evaluate the potential effectiveness and unintended consequences of these changes. Gun control is a complex issue, and solutions should be based on evidence-backed policies rather than knee-jerk reactions. Collaborative efforts between both sides of the aisle are necessary to find common ground and address the root causes of gun violence in a comprehensive and effective manner.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
