Anti-gun people are having a difficult time coming to terms with the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision. It’s a crippling loss that they’re unlikely to ever fully recover from.
Some of them are going through the full Kübler-Ross five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance. A recent blog post by Michael Moore — who’s never been a fan of the Second Amendment — reveals that he’s somewhere in the denial and bargaining stages, with some heavy doses of fantasy and delusion mixed in.
My version of a new amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment:
THE 28th AMENDMENThttps://t.co/0SRexdqO9b
— Michael Moore (@MMFlint) July 10, 2022
You can find the corpulent Michigander’s new proposal — which he puts forward as a 28th Amendment to the Constitution — here, but I don’t think I have to warn readers that anything written by Moore is very likely to be mistaken for the deranged ravings of an ill-infomed lunatic.
Obviously, the first thing Moore wants his new amendment to do is eliminate the individual right to keep and bear arms. To do that, he decided that he needed his own prefatory clause (even if that proved to be a bad idea for the original Second Amendment). Moore’s reads . . .
“The inalienable right of a free people to be kept safe from gun violence and the fear thereof must not be infringed and shall be protected by the Congress and the States.”
Obviously he didn’t think this one all the way through. Creating a right to “be kept safe from gun violence” would theoretically make the state responsible for any violence, regardless of who perpetrates it. So, when the inevitable violence continues to occur, state and federal officials would face endless liability. This would probably even lead to the police being unable to use guns, but maybe he thinks that’s a good thing.
Moore’s proposed 28th Amendment then repeals the Second Amendment, which is an obvious sticking point to selling the concept. Not only would his proposed amendment have to pass Congress with a two-thirds supermajority in both the House and the Senate, but it would also have to be ratified by at least 38 states, which is obviously never going to happen even if his amendment stopped here.
An Article V convention of states is another possibility, but if that were to happen, we’d likely see an expansion of gun rights and more severe limits on federal power, which would result people like Mike being even more unhappy.
There’s also the question of whether the Constitution would even be valid at all if part of the Bill of Rights is repealed. A number of the original states only ratified the Constitution with assurances there would be a Bill of Rights. Two states refused to ratify at all until after the amendments were passed, and weren’t part of the newly formed United States at all until that happened. While it may be legal to repeal the Second Amendment, it’s possible that a number of states and rural areas in other states could decide to walk away based on this issue.
One thing the distinguished filmmaker and activist doesn’t seem to understand is that the Constitution isn’t the right place to legislate. The Constitution sets limits on legislation and government actions, and specifies how those actions are to happen (division of powers, etc.), but then leaves the task of actually making laws to the legislative branch.
Despite this, his proposed amendment’s second section contains a licensing scheme for firearms ownership. Firearm ownership permits would be issued for licensedhunters, shooting ranges, and those with a “special need” on a may-issue basis. This would all require, of course, the approval of family members, spouses/partners, exes, co-workers, and neighbors. In other words, virtually no one would be issued a license to own a gun, ever.
The Rest of This Thing
Section 3 requires training for anyone getting a license, and Section 4 sets a minimum age of 25 for all licensing, while specifying an annual renewal and review process. So, he doesn’t really know how to organize his thoughts, either.
Section 5 requires Congress to maintain a California-style list of approved guns and bans all automatic and semi-auto weapons as well as anything holding more than six rounds. In other words, revolvers only.
Then, in a particularly idiotic move, he bans not only homemade and 3D-printed guns, but “any homemade equipment and machinery or a 3D printer that can make a gun or weapon that can take a human life.” So with a waive of his hoplophobic wand, Moore just eliminated all 3D prototyping and manufacturing in the United States.
Section 6 puts Congress in charge of regulating “all ammunition, capacity of ammunition, the storage of guns, gun locks, gun sights, body armor and the sale and distribution of such items.” These are the same people who are worried about islands capsizing and wildfires being caused by space lasers.
Moore would also ban any firearm “whose sole intention is the premeditated elimination of human life.” So murder weapons? Moore seems to have stumbled yet again here as literally no firearm is made with the sole purpose of eliminating human life.
For those who are worried that only police and the military will have access to all the really good guns, the amendment mandates continuous monitoring of the police and the getting rid of any cop who shows “any racist or violent behavior.” So they’ll be able to carry guns, but won’t be able to actually use them. Because that would be violent. Or something.
Finally, Section 8 gives everyone a month after ratification of the amendment to turn in their newly banned or unlicensed guns in for destruction (but authorities can choose to conduct buyacks). Everyone who isn’t appropriately licensed and owns guns on the Congressionally approved list.
In practice, of course, this means no one will be legal. Licensing and Congressional approval of firearms can’t possibly happen in 30 days, so literally everyone will need to turn in all of their firearms. Go figure.
Unencumbered by the Thought Process
It’s surprising that a great legal mind like Michael Moore seems to have put so little time and actual thought into crafting this thing. The amendment contains outright contradictions, things that can’t happen within given timeframes, and obstacles that would prove basically impossible.
It would disarm not only citizens, but even police once you think about this at all (not that disarming the police would be a new idea for Moore). It would also ban all future weapons and anything that could kill a person, along with anything that could be used to make firearms. So basically everything would be illegal under Moore’s amendment and no one would legally own firearms any more.
Or maybe that was the point after all.