SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.... Except for the 28th Amendment

Published on September 2, 2023
Duration: 25:09

This video analyzes California's Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR7), an attempt to propose a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. CRPA Legislative Director Rick Travis and the host dissect the resolution's 'whereas' clauses, arguing they are based on flawed data and misinterpretations of historical context and Supreme Court rulings like Bruin. The discussion highlights how SJR7 aims to export California's strict gun control measures nationwide, serving as a political statement rather than a viable legislative path.

Quick Summary

Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR7) is a California initiative proposing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, aiming to nationalize strict gun control measures like waiting periods and assault weapon bans. Critics argue it relies on flawed data and serves as a political statement by Governor Gavin Newsom to export California's laws, with little chance of ratification.

Chapters

  1. 00:00Introduction to SJR7
  2. 01:17Overview of SJR7 and its Goals
  3. 03:43Exporting California Laws Nationally
  4. 05:35Analyzing 'Whereas' Clause 1: Gun Violence Stats
  5. 09:45Analyzing 'Whereas' Clause 2: Gun Safety Laws & CA Data
  6. 12:01Critique of California's Gun Law Effectiveness
  7. 16:18Analyzing 'Whereas' Clause 3: SCOTUS & Bruin Decision
  8. 21:11Founding Fathers' Intent vs. SJR7 Claims
  9. 22:11Political Motivation Behind SJR7
  10. 23:22Call to Action for Voters
  11. 24:21Conclusion and Further Advocacy

Frequently Asked Questions

What is Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR7)?

SJR7 is a California legislative initiative proposing a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It aims to redefine Second Amendment rights by incorporating strict gun control measures, such as waiting periods and assault weapon bans, nationwide. The resolution is driven by Governor Gavin Newsom and the California legislature, but faces significant criticism for its reliance on flawed data and political motivations.

Why is SJR7 considered a political statement rather than a viable amendment?

Critics argue SJR7 is unlikely to pass, requiring two-thirds of states for ratification and facing opposition from many state attorneys general. Its proponents, like Governor Newsom, are accused of using it as a platform to advance a specific political agenda and export California's gun laws, rather than genuinely seeking constitutional change. The resolution's foundation on disputed statistics and misinterpretations of legal precedent further weakens its legitimacy.

How does SJR7 attempt to redefine the Second Amendment?

SJR7 seeks to amend the U.S. Constitution by incorporating specific gun control policies currently enforced in California. These include measures like a 10-day waiting period for firearm purchases, universal background checks, raising the minimum age to purchase firearms to 21, and banning certain types of firearms often referred to as 'assault weapons.' The goal is to establish these restrictions as federal constitutional mandates.

What are the main criticisms of the data used in SJR7?

The 'whereas' clauses of SJR7 are criticized for using data from anti-gun groups like Brady and Giffords, which are alleged to be inaccurate or misleading. Specific points of contention include the framing of gun violence statistics, the claim that firearms are the leading cause of death for children under 18 (which is debated based on age inclusions and exclusions), and the assertion that California's gun laws have halved gun deaths without accounting for population growth.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from CRPA TV

View all →