Last summer, Gov. Gavin Newsom made a splashy announcement on a nationally televised morning show.

As millions of Americans tuned in over their breakfast and coffee, California’s Democratic governor said he was fed up with Congress’ inability to pass gun safety laws and was taking matters into his own hands, calling for a new constitutional amendment to restrict firearms.

The proposal was more of a swashbuckling play for attention than a plan with any rational chance of success. The last — and only — time the states gathered for a constitutional convention was in 1787, when George Washington had yet to be elected as the United States’ first president.

Still, California’s Democratic lawmakers overwhelmingly approved Newsom’s proposal, and formally called for a convention to amend the Constitution to ban the sale of assault weapons, require universal background checks on gun purchases and raise the minimum age to buy a firearm from 18 to 21.

But a handful of Democrats did not go along with the plan. A progressive senator from San Francisco was the most vocal critic, arguing that a constitutional convention could wind up empowering a conservative agenda. And now, with the country in flux and a former president known for defying the laws of political gravity and pulverizing long-standing norms soon to be sworn back into office, he’s launched a new push to blunt Newsom’s flashy maneuver and rescind California’s call to amend the Constitution.

“There is no way that I want California to accidentally help these extremists trigger a constitutional convention where they, you know, rewrite the Constitution to restrict voting rights, to eliminate reproductive health access and so forth,” said Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco).

Come January, Republicans will control the White House and both chambers of Congress. The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority is likely to remain in place for years to come.

To Wiener and some other Democrats, the once-improbable prospect of another constitutional convention suddenly seems a bit more credible under a second Trump term.

Calling another constitutional convention would require the approval of 34 of the 50 states. But many, like California, have existing calls on the books. Accounts differ on how many states have already called for a constitutional convention, but at least one tally puts the count above the requisite 34.

Wiener’s proposal, which was first reported by the New York Times, would nullify and supersede all constitutional convention applications previously put forth by the Legislature.

Wiener, like Newsom, is an ambitious and media-savvy politician. A frequent Fox News bête noire, he routinely carries legislation that makes headlines and pushes Democrats from the left. Wiener has made no secret of his desire for a congressional seat — specifically the one long occupied by Democratic powerbroker and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whenever she retires.

Wiener is far from the only Democratic politician to fear the possibility of a conservative-led constitutional convention on the horizon. Several other states, including New Jersey and Illinois, have similarly rescinded their open calls for a constitutional convention in recent years.

“I think it’s a more present danger than many appreciate. There has been a movement by fringe conservatives for many, many years now to create a constitutional convention. And those folks are closer to power in Washington, D.C., than ever before,” said Jonathan Mehta Stein, executive director of the nonpartisan democracy advocacy group California Common Cause.

Mehta Stein described the possibility of such a convention as a “Pandora’s box for our Constitution” that would create “the opportunity for forces we don’t even know to overhaul our democratic institutions and our basic human rights.”

The governor’s office said his position had not changed regarding his support for a new constitutional amendment and declined to comment further.

Wiener’s decision to bring the resolution forward is a bit of a finger in the eye to the governor, who has vetoed some of Wiener’s most high-profile bills, including one to regulate artificial intelligence and another to decriminalize psychedelic mushrooms.

Newsom could try to will Wiener’s resolution toward a soundless death by leaning on lawmakers to bury it without a vote. Representatives for Senate President Pro Tem Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) and Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas (D-Hollister) both declined to say whether the Democratic legislative leaders support Wiener’s resolution.

Republican leaders were also noncommittal, though Wiener may wind up with their support. Senate GOP Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said he was reviewing Wiener’s resolution and assessing the benefits and potential consequences of a constitutional convention. Like Wiener, both Jones and Assembly Republican Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City) voted against Newsom’s proposal last year.

“This scheme was nothing but a publicity stunt from the start,” said Gallagher, who is leaning toward supporting Wiener’s repeal effort. “If repealing it will get Newsom to focus on California’s problems instead of chasing the national limelight, that sounds like a good thing.”

The fight ahead could also be a boon for Wiener, further raising his public profile ahead of a potential congressional campaign. That said, it will also test his political might, particularly if the governor chooses to wage a behind-the-scenes campaign against the proposal.

At issue, in part, is the question of how a constitutional convention would actually play out on the ground, and whether it could be convened around a specific topic, such as gun safety, as Newsom has insisted.

The instructions for how the states would proceed after calling a constitutional convention are laid out in Article V of the Constitution, a 143-word sentence that includes virtually no instructions for specific logistics.

Newsom’s office has maintained that his original resolution includes provisions rendering the call void if a constitutional convention is convened on a topic other than gun control.

But legal experts have pushed back on the idea that a constitutional convention could be convened around a single topic.

“The problem is, since there’s never been a constitutional convention under Article V, no one knows” whether it can be limited to one topic, said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Berkeley Law School and a leading constitutional law scholar. “People have said you can do it and people have said you can’t do it. The only honest answer anybody can give you is there’s no way to know, since it’s never happened.”

Chemerinsky, who characterized Newsom’s call for a constitutional convention on gun safety as misguided, said he agreed with Wiener and thought it was plausible that a constitutional convention could actually happen.

“There’s certainly a risk that it could be a very ideologically driven group of people who would propose quite extreme changes to the Constitution,” Chemerinsky said.