Gov. Gavin Newsom has a good target, but misses the target in his attempt to amend the US Constitution with a gun control mandate.

California’s liberal governor has absolutely no chance of a gun control change. It is beyond the realm of political possibility, at least for the foreseeable future.

But that’s okay. With the current rate of gun slaughter across America and with the stubborn refusal of the gun lobbies to compromise on reasonable regulation, it’s only a matter of time in this century before the 2nd Amendment is tinkered with.

Newsom wants to get it working.

If you don’t start, it never happens, he says.

Newsom’s goal is off-line as he tries to enshrine specific rules in the constitution.

His proposal is spot on. It is as if, in writing the 2nd Amendment to the Right to Bear Arms in 1789, the country’s founders had specified the maximum muzzle size of a blunderbuss or the firepower of a musket.

Newsom wants his 28th Amendment to unequivocally require four conditions for firearms possession. The buyer must be at least 21 years old, undergo a universal background check, and wait a reasonable period of time before picking up a seller’s gun. Also, no assault weapons could be sold to civilians.

Assault weapons are believed to include semi-automatic weapons with large-capacity magazines, the types already banned in California, an ordinance being challenged in court by gun rights advocates.

These firearms have no other purpose than to kill as many people as possible in a short time. Weapons of war that the founding fathers of our nations never envisioned, Newsom said last week announcing his national crusade.

Agreed. But detailed gun restrictions should be left to Congress, state legislatures and local jurisdictions to decide.

Newsom’s amendment would include a provision that would allow our elected federal, state and local representatives to enact common sense gun safety regulations. But that’s all it should do. Forget the specifics.

Newsom, like many gun control advocates, fears that the current gun-friendly Supreme Court will overturn the strict regulations already passed by California and some other blue states, ruling they violate the 2nd Amendment. That is why he wants to firmly anchor the most important rules in the Constitution with a new amendment, while retaining the right to bear arms.

But Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School, a constitutional scholar, notes that the gun restrictions Newsom has been concerned about by the Supreme Court do not violate the Second Amendment. At least still.

A new constitutional amendment is therefore not necessary, he argues. Congress could pass the strict rules themselves.

Of course, repeated attempts to pressure Congress to pass such legislation have failed miserably because of an inherent gun culture in much of the country, especially rural areas.

The governor is ignoring the core problem, says Chemerinsky. It is the lack of political will for meaningful gun regulation in Congress and the legislatures. If no laws can be passed, there will be no constitutional amendment.

There are two ways to pass a constitutional amendment, both extremely difficult for a controversial topic like firearms. Only one method has ever been used: both houses of Congress propose an amendment by a two-thirds vote, and the measure is ratified by three-quarters of the legislators.

Newsom knows that Congress would never do that. So he proposes the untested way: Two-thirds of states would advocate for a constitutional convention to be convened by Congress. The proposed amendment to the treaties would then have to be ratified by three quarters of the states.

A terrible idea, says Chemerinsky.

The convention could go haywire and mess with many amendments, he fears.

Liberals have been resisting a constitutional convention for a balanced budget amendment for years because of the risk, says the professor. Newsom undermines that argument.

UCLA professor Adam Winkler, who specializes in gun law, also says: I don’t like the idea of ​​a constitutional convention. I wouldn’t trust Americans to rewrite their Constitution right now. It could lead to a worse constitution than we have.

About 40 states are very pro-gun. You are more likely to get an amendment to expand gun rights.

In fact, Winkler thinks Newsom’s efforts could have the opposite effect of accelerating gun control.

I think it’s a distraction, he says. It may convince gun owners that the Democrats just want to take their guns away. It can make it harder to let things pass.

Dan Schnur, a former Republican operative who teaches political communications at USC and UC Berkeley, says Newsom’s proposed change has absolutely no chance of success.

But it’s still pretty smart politics.

When Newsom usually talks about national politics, he sounds very partisan, very divided, and very bitter. He looks like a liberal version of [Florida Gov. Ron] DeSantis. But on this point, he comes to an issue where most of the country agrees with him.

He didn’t make this proposal because he thought it might happen, says Schnur. He made it to get attention. And it worked.

surah But if Newsom has the grit to pursue this aggressively, it could generate more passion within the Democratic voter base to push for their representatives to implement meaningful gun control. For years, the passion was all on the gun rights side.

People will demand this be done in the state legislature, emphasizes Councilman Reginald Jones-Sawyer (D-Los Angeles), who will sponsor a California legislative resolution calling on Congress to convene a convention.

It will not necessarily be what the politicians want, but what the people want.

That’s wishful thinking. But the effort could be worth it.

That is, if Newsom throws out the details that too many gun owners would see as a threat to take away their 21st-century muskets.