As the debate over gun control continues to roil the nation, earlier this month, far-left activist and filmmaker Michael Moore took to Substack to propose a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution he says will afford Americans “the right to be kept safe both from gun violence and the fear it could affect their lives,” as the Daily Wire reports.
In Moore’s estimation, his highly-detailed draft amendment is designed to repeal and replace the 2nd Amendment articulating the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms, and though he suggested that the proposal has been offered to Congress, he did not elaborate on precisely how that occurred.
Outlined in painfully voluminous individual sections, Moore’s overarching goal with the proposed amendment is to strictly curtail the ability of Americans to possess firearms, with the introductory clause declaring, “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.”
Indeed, as The Wrap noted, Moore explicitly stated that his amendment “does not grant any American the ‘right’ to own any weapon,” standing in stark contrast to the existing 2nd Amendment, which affirms that liberty in clear terms.
According to Moore’s desired scheme, there would be only limited scenarios in which individuals could obtain firearms as well as a host of bureaucratic obstacles standing in the way of those attempting to do so, including a licensing regime that would restrict civilian gun possession to those intending to hunt or shoot targets or – in strictly narrow circumstances – to those able to prove a legitimate self-defense need.
Also included in Moore’s draft language are background check requirements involving written and confidential interviews with partners and ex-partners, family members, co-workers, and neighbors; a one-month waiting period; annual written tests and gun safety trainings; as well as a prohibition on gun sales to anyone under the age of 25.
The notoriously radical rabble-rouser also took it upon himself to decide and define which kinds of firearms would be banned, also charging Congress with the task of regulating the type and quantities of allowable ammunition, gun sights, body armor, and the like. While Moore deigned to allow law enforcement the use of firearms, his scheme would subject them to confiscation if officers were determined to have acted in a “racist” or “violent” manner.
Not surprisingly, it was not long before Moore’s proposal – which also declared that “persons already owning any of the above banned firearms, and who do not fall into the legal groups of restricted firearms owners, will have one month from the ratification of this Amendment to turn in their firearms for destruction” – attracted a heavy volume of scathing criticism.
The Washington Examiner‘s Byron York opined on Twitter, “Really kind of amazing. Draconian, as one would expect. And long – longer than the 14th Amendment. Just say the moviemaker hasn’t mastered the constitutional amendment style.”
Conservative commentator Beth Baumann weighed in as well, tweeting, “Talk about a proposal riddled with unconstitutional aspects. A gun registry is unconstitutional. Requiring a “special need” for CCW permits is unconstitutional. And you definitively proved the Left’s end game: firearm confiscation.”
Conservative pundit Ian Haworth pointed out the likely hypocrisy underlying Moore’s demands, posting on the social media platform, “Guns only ‘for the few who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection.’ Guessing his private security counts?”
Author Michael Malice put things even more bluntly, declaring Moore and the gun control fanatics sure to support his proposed amendment to be “in fullblown fanfic mode now, completely untethered to reality,” an assessment with which it is indeed difficult to disagree.