Connect with us

Politics

A year after Newsom called for constitutional amendment on gun safety, no other states have joined him

Published

on

A year after Newsom called for constitutional amendment on gun safety, no other states have joined him

On NBC’s “Today” show last June, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced a proposal that seemed politically impossible from the start: Convincing two-thirds of state legislatures in America to officially call for a constitutional convention to adopt national gun safety laws.

Newsom didn’t see it that way.

“It’s possible because their constituency demands it,” Newsom said when the interviewer pointed out that more than half the states are controlled by Republicans who generally oppose gun restrictions.

One year later, no other state has joined Newsom’s fight.

Advertisement

The inability to advance the gun safety proposal beyond California, even in other Democratic-controlled states, suggests that — so far at least — Newsom’s plan was more flash than substance.

The governor’s pitch inspired a round of media coverage last year that elevated his national profile as a Democrat trying to do something about mass shootings and other gun violence. Newsom pointed to findings of a Fox News Poll that found overwhelming voter support for the restrictions.

The gun initiative has given him another opportunity to reach out to voters outside of California, widening his national appeal for a potential White House run in the future and creating an opportunity to expand his database of political supporters before his time as governor ends in two years.

Yet Newsom must still contend with the stubborn politics of the 2nd Amendment. Many lawmakers at the national and state level are reluctant to buck a powerful gun lobby and risk being accused of trying to dilute the constitutional right to bear arms.

The governor said he expected the slow progress, adding that support for a constitutional amendment on gun control could take 20 years to catch on.

Advertisement

“Come on, no one was naive about this,” Newsom said in a recent interview with The Times. “This has been done before, but not recently. It will have its fits and starts. It will have its champions and will have its setbacks.”

So far, the setbacks have been easier to spot.

Newsom’s plan would require two-thirds of states to pass resolutions supporting a constitutional convention. Through the convention, new federal gun safety measures would have to be ratified by three-fourths of state legislatures. Newsom is calling for states to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that requires universal background checks on gun purchases and raises the minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21. The governor wants the gathering of states to also result in a “reasonable waiting” period for all gun purchases and to prohibit the sale of assault weapons to the public.

California lawmakers passed a resolution in September calling for a constitutional convention to consider the proposal.

The governor and his political aides began reaching out to other states after the California Legislature acted, hoping to find lawmakers around the country with compelling personal stories to lead the effort.

Advertisement

Some states have part-time Legislatures, which meet for only a few months annually or every other year, and lawmakers told Newsom’s aides it wasn’t feasible to pass a resolution this year, an advisor to the governor said. In other states, legislators who advocate for gun control had already committed to their bill packages for 2024.

“And others specifically said, ‘Not right now,’ I mean, there’s electoral issues,” Newsom said.

Newsom said he’s had “dozens of conversations,” but the governor and his political staff declined to name any states or individuals they have spoken with.

He said he’s discussed the constitutional amendment in every state he’s visited through his Campaign for Democracy, a political action committee that he formed to raise money for Democrats and to fight Republicans nationally in the 2024 election.

“So we’re talking to legislative leaders in all those red states,” Newsom said.

Advertisement

Last year, a few weeks after launching his call for the constitutional convention, Newsom went to Idaho to meet with Democrats and fund-raise for Biden’s reelection through his political action committee.

Democrat Melissa Winthrow, the minority leader in the Idaho state Senate, said she never heard from the California governor.

“No, I have not spoken to Gov. Newsom,” Winthrow said. “I’m not aware of if he’s been in communication with anybody. I have not.”

Winthrow doesn’t see how Newsom’s proposal has a chance of passing in Idaho.

“This is a supermajority red state, probably one of the most conservative in the country, with the strictest abortion bans and so forth,” she said. “So you’re not going to see any movement to restrict anything with firearms.”

Advertisement

Winthrow said she’s not sure she could support Newsom’s resolution because if a convention ever took place, her state would be represented by Republicans who would gut any amendment to restrict guns. In California, some Democrats declined to back the measure after legal scholars warned that states might be able to take up other issues beyond the scope of Newsom’s gun amendment at a constitutional convention.

There also are political realities in states like Idaho, where gun culture is so ingrained that Democrats largely avoid campaigning on the issue. Winthrow has introduced legislation to keep firearms from people convicted of domestic abuse and another bill to keep firearms from convicted pedophiles. Both failed.

She can’t imagine a scenario where Newsom’s proposal gains traction.

“There’s just no way the state is going to agree to that. It just isn’t going to happen. As I’ve described, the political climate here is such that it just wouldn’t even be on the table,” Winthrow said. “They would laugh.”

Newsom said he knew his proposal might not play well in some GOP-controlled states. But there are no signs it’s taken off in blue states either.

Advertisement

Despite Newsom’s cooperation with the Democratic leaders of other West Coast states on abortion access and curbing climate change, neither Oregon nor Washington have picked up the mantle of his gun control amendment.

“There has been no talk here of doing something similar,” said Aaron Wasser, a spokesman for Washington state Senate Democrats.

Washington House Speaker Laurie Jinkins “has not had any discussions with Gov. Newsom about this topic,” said her spokesperson Jen Waldref.

“This is not a concept that has been considered by the Oregon Legislature,” said Lucas Bezerra, spokesman for Oregon House Democrats.

Newsom did not directly answer questions about whether a nationwide campaign to restrict guns could hurt Biden’s reelection bid if Republicans responded by claiming Democrats are out to take away firearms. The governor said other issues, such as inflation, the cost of living and the economy were more top of mind to voters.

Advertisement

Newsom reiterated that his proposal would preserve the right of Americans to bear arms and focus strictly on gun safety that most Americans support. Newsom was inspired by inaction in Congress and California’s own efforts to pass gun control laws that have been struck down by federal courts.

“This was done very thoughtfully in the context of where things actually are, and where the American people are in every state,” Newsom said.

Newsom’s political advisor said lawmakers in many states are focused on their own elections or the presidential race this year, forcing the governor’s team to reevaluate their strategy and timetable.

Newsom’s team shifted focus to building support on the local level this year before ramping up their effort in 2025.

“Since California passed the amendment last year, the campaign has been building a grassroots army of activists who will support a national right to safety in states across the country and working with legislators on bill introductions for 2025 when states begin a new legislative session,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Newsom.

Advertisement

Click said the campaign has “signed up over a million Americans to support the right to safety in their states.” More than 1,500 have completed volunteer training to help in their states and 10,000 volunteers will be trained by early 2025 when the bill introductions begin, he said.

Newsom’s Campaign for Democracy, his national political committee, sent out an email to its fundraising list in early May seeking volunteers.

The goal for volunteers laid out in the email was two-fold: To turn out voters across the country who will elect Democrats and get the Right to Safety amendment introduced in more states next year.

But the odds of Newsom building a successful movement are slim, because it’s so difficult to amend the Constitution, said University of Texas law school professor Sanford Levinson.

“He’s swimming upstream in terms of trying to persuade people that a constitutional amendment regarding guns is going to be a very fruitful way of spending their time,” Levinson said.

Advertisement

“No knowledgeable person about contemporary politics could really believe that that proposal is going to take off nationally with other state legislatures.”

Newsom’s pitch echoes a similar move the governor of Texas once made from the opposite end of the political spectrum.

In 2016, Republican Gov. Greg Abbott called for a convention of the states to make nine amendments to the U.S. constitution. They included a slew of conservative goals to limit federal power and require a balanced federal budget, which Abbott detailed in a 92-page plan.

The Texas Legislature passed the resolution the next year. But not much happened after that.

“He obviously thought that it might give him some political mileage,” Levinson said. “And it clearly didn’t.”

Advertisement

Politics

Video: Judge Decides to Keep Charlie Kirk Hearings Open to Public

Published

on

Video: Judge Decides to Keep Charlie Kirk Hearings Open to Public

new video loaded: Judge Decides to Keep Charlie Kirk Hearings Open to Public

transcript

transcript

Judge Decides to Keep Charlie Kirk Hearings Open to Public

Utah district judge, Tony Graf, rejected the defense’s bid to close the hearings in the Charlie Kirk murder case. The defendant, Tyler J. Robinson, is accused of fatally shooting Mr. Kirk, the conservative activist.

A party seeking to close a preliminary hearing must show that adverse publicity traceable to the opening hearing poses a realistic likelihood of prejudice to a fair trial. Public access to the judicial — to judicial proceedings also serve in an important role in maintaining confidence in the fairness and transparency of the judicial process. This court finds these showings have not been made here.

Advertisement
Utah district judge, Tony Graf, rejected the defense’s bid to close the hearings in the Charlie Kirk murder case. The defendant, Tyler J. Robinson, is accused of fatally shooting Mr. Kirk, the conservative activist.

By Meg Felling

June 1, 2026

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump admin backs off controversial $2B fund, clearing path for stalled GOP immigration bill

Published

on

Trump admin backs off controversial B fund, clearing path for stalled GOP immigration bill

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Department of Justice (DOJ) pressed pause on the Trump administration’s “anti-weaponization” fund on Monday, giving Senate Republicans runway to hammer through a massive immigration enforcement funding package in the process.

The DOJ announced on X that it would abide by a Virginia federal court’s order to not move forward with the fund. It comes as Republicans in the upper chamber punted their plan to advance a $72 billion immigration enforcement package over deep concerns about who could access the flow of taxpayer dollars from the nearly $2 billion fund.

The DOJ said in a statement that it “disagrees strongly with the decision on the Anti-Weaponization Fund” by the Virginia district court, “wherein the Court stated that, under no circumstances, may the Department of Justice proceed with the Anti-Weaponization Fund recently established in order to make up for the tremendous abuse, harm, and hate unfairly shown to so many people.”

SENATE GOP ERUPTS OVER TRUMP DOJ ‘ANTI-WEAPONIZATION’ FUND, PUNTS ICE, BORDER PATROL FUNDING

Advertisement

President Donald Trump looks on during a swearing-in ceremony for new Chairman of the Federal Reserve Kevin Warsh in the East Room of the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 22, 2026. (Aaron Schwartz/AFP via Getty Images)

“This fund was open to anybody who was so weaponized, targeted, or persecuted, whether they were Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Independent, or otherwise,” the agency said. “The Department will abide by the Court’s ruling.”

For the time being, that could ease Republicans’ concerns over whether those convicted of assaulting police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, could access the money. And it will likely allow the GOP to restart the budget reconciliation process with that political pressure point now sidelined.

It comes as Democrats are gearing up for a deluge of bills and amendments that likely could have passed had the administration not halted the fund. But still, it’s unclear if it means the fund has totally been nixed, or if it’s just a temporary pause.

GOP’S PRIMED FOR PRIMARY SEASON PAYBACK ON TRUMP’S MOST AMBITIOUS, CONTROVERSIAL POLICY

Advertisement

When asked if he thought Democratic amendments and bills would survive, Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said that the administration would have to be crystal clear about what happens next.

“If the administration effectively shuts it down, and makes that very, very clear, and that, to me, should answer the question,” Thune said.

Whether the fund has permanently come to an end is still an open question. Fox News Digital was referred to the DOJ by the White House for comment, and the DOJ did not immediately respond. 

Given that grey area, Senate Democrats plan to move full-steam ahead with their slate of legislation and amendments geared toward completely terminating the “anti-weaponization” fund. 

CONGRESS BARRELS TOWARD DEADLINE PILE-UP AS GOP DIVISIONS THREATEN TRUMP AGENDA

Advertisement

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer speaks during a news conference after a weekly Democrat policy luncheon at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 14, 2026. (Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

“If Trump and Republicans are truly abandoning this corrupt scheme, they should have zero problem banning it in law,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said on X. “This week, Senate Democrats will push legislation to ban this slush fund and ensure no president can ever do this again. Trump’s word is nowhere near enough.”

Schumer had already primed Democrats to take advantage of the brewing dissent within the GOP with an aggressive legislative strategy during the forthcoming “vote-a-rama,” where both sides of the aisle will get a near unlimited number of amendments to vote on for the immigration package. 

Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., already plans to introduce three bills that would redirect the funding to address growing affordability concerns in the country. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“My bills will redirect the $1.8 BILLION slush fund money to SNAP, Medicaid, and law enforcement programs like those that help our local police departments hire more officers,” Rosen said on X. 

“You work hard for your money, and I’ll be damned if I let Donald Trump or anyone else use it for a slush fund for their friends. Let’s see if Washington Republicans agree,” she continued. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

’60 Minutes’ veteran Scott Pelley rips CBS News bosses, saying they are ‘murdering’ the program

Published

on

’60 Minutes’ veteran Scott Pelley rips CBS News bosses, saying they are ‘murdering’ the program

Nick Bilton, the new executive producer of “60 Minutes,” received a hostile welcome Monday from the CBS News program’s most respected correspondent Scott Pelley as the staff is still reeling over last week’s firings.

In the first staff meeting since Bilton was named last week, Pelley accused CBS News Editor-in-chief Bari Weiss of “murdering” the country’s most-watched news program, which recently finished the TV season with a 9 percent ratings increase. Recordings of the meeting were circulated to journalists.

“She is murdering ‘60 Minutes,’” Pelley said. “She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it, and she’s been doing exactly that.” Pelley also attacked the credentials of Bilton, a former New York Times tech reporter and documentary filmmaker who like Weiss has no previous experience running a TV news operation.

Bilton was named to replace Tanya Simon on Thursday, an unexpected move that also came with the firing of correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega. The moves were enacted by Weiss, who has targeted the prestigious program for changes since she arrived at the network last fall.

David Ellison, chief executive of CBS News parent Paramount, brought in Weiss — a skeptic of legacy media — with a mandate to move the division more to the political center. But many critics have seen the move as an attempt to placate the Trump administration while Ellison seeks regulatory approval for his deal to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery,

Advertisement

“60 Minutes,” has long been in Trump’s cross hairs. The president sued the program last year over the editing of an interview with his 2024 opponent former Vice President Kamala Harris. The suit was settled just ahead of the Federal Communications Commission clearing the way for Ellison’s Skydance Media takeover of Paramount.

One person close to “60 Minutes” said attendees at the meeting in the Manhattan West Side offices described it as something they had never witnessed in their careers. The confrontation — and the applause Pelley received from his colleagues during the meeting — also demonstrates how CBS News management may have underestimated the staff’s devotion to the program, now closing in on its sixth decade, that has long been considered the most powerful and respected platform in TV journalism.

A representative for CBS News declined comment on the meeting.

Pelley is held in especially high stature at the network due to his work over the years in dangerous war zones. When he was anchor at the “CBS Evening News,” he displayed photos of CBS News journalists who have died in the line of duty for the network going back to George Polk, who was killed during Greece’s civil war in 1948.

People close to CBS News management said both Bilton and Weiss reached out to Pelley last week to discuss the changes and their plans for the program’s future but he did not respond.

Advertisement

One CBS News veteran said the tense meeting “reads like Scott wants to be fired.”

Weiss has maintained she is committed to expanding the “60 Minutes” brand so it generates viewing and revenue outside of its Sunday night broadcast. But she has also clashed with producers and correspondents over the handling of stories such as Alfonsi’s report on the Trump administration’s use of harsh El Salvador prisons to hold undocumented Venezuelan migrants.

Alfonsi’s message to colleagues saying the segment was held for political reasons led to her dismissal from the program.

Vega posted a message last week claiming she had been facing pressure to insert political bias into her stories. “I very much fear what comes next for … the future of the legendary broadcast,” Vega said in a social media post on Thursday, referring to “60 Minutes.”

A CBS News representative said last week that Vega’s claims “are not based in reality.”

Advertisement

Bilton has tried to reassure veterans at the program that he remains committed to the program’s mandate to provide tough, investigative journalism. The words he’s used in several meetings are that next season will not be much different than the successful year the program just completed.

“He’s very much committed to continuing and extending the kind of journalism that ’60 Minutes’ has been known for.” said one person close to Bilton.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending