Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted this morning an idea that makes a lot of sense, and will surely be debated.
“I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to help end our nation’s gun violence crisis. The American people are sick of Congress’ inaction. The 28th will enshrine 4 widely supported gun safety freedoms — while leaving the 2nd Amendment intact: 1) Raising the minimum age to purchase a gun to 21 2) Universal background checks 3) A reasonable waiting period for gun purchases 4) Banning the civilian purchase of assault weapons.”
I’d add a requirement for liability insurance in the event the gun is used in the comission of a crime and I’d add a significant tax on bullets. A tax on bullets doesn’t infringe on a right to own a firearm anymore than driving on a highway with a BMW or an Oldsmobile doesn’t infringe on your right to use a freeway.
So only rich people can exercise their second amendment right? Your BMW Vs Oldsmobile argument is intellectually dishonest. A significant tax on ammunition is more akin to everybody can own a car, but fuel will cost $20/gallon. That is not an infringment on owning a vehicle, but would absolutely be an infrignment on a persons ability to operate said vehicle.
You’re free to excercise your 2nd amendment rights but you’ll pay out the ass to do so. Fuel is $5 a gallon and people made adjustments as to how they get around. Neither option stops you from engaging. It just costs more. make your choice
So the answer is yes, you believe only wealthy people should be able to exercise their second amendment right. Your proposal doesn’t by law stop a person from engaging but it’s a de facto law that sounds to me like it’s meant to exclude many citizens from exercising their rights, that sounds like an infrignment to me.
The Constitution doesn’t not consider the financial ability of someone to afford guns or bullets; you still have a constitutional right to own a gun. The constitution doesn’t say bullets can’t be taxed or affordable
The point is not financial ability. The taxes you propose are specifically meant to impede a persons ability to exercise a right, it doesn’t do so outright but that’s the spirit of the law. I don’t believe you’re so dense that you can’t comprehend how that constitutes an infringment which leads me to believe you are intentionally ignoring the fact hence my use of the phrase “intellectually dishonest”. The problem I have with your proposal is the unintended consequences of such legislation where the only people able to exercise that right are the wealthy or criminals do not comply with laws to begin with.
“criminals *who do not comply with the law…”
So this is Newsom’s sorry excuse for the collapse of every city he resides in? More restrictions for hunters and women willing to blow away dangerous intruders explains whose side Newsom is on. Just because he is dyslexic doesn’t mean the criminals are.