
Tom Brenner/Getty Images

Documentary filmmaker Michael Moore was mocked on Sunday after he published a draft of a new constitutional amendment that would repeal the Second Amendment.
Just days after recounting the privileges of "full citizenship," Moore published his draft of a new constitutional amendment that would severely restrict firearm ownership.
The proposed amendment contains eight sections and demonstrates clear misunderstandings of constitutional law.
The first section focuses on protecting Americans from "gun violence and the fear thereof." It 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. This Amendment thus repeals and replaces the Second Amendment.
The amendment also raises the minimum legal age for firearm ownership to 25 (section 4), establishes a national firearm registry (section 2), outlines a lengthy and strict process for firearm ownership (sections 2, 3, and 4), and outlaws all semi-automatic firearms (section 5).
In Moore's dystopian utopia, then, only firearms like revolvers and bolt-action rifles are legal. Moore similarly limits who can own firearms to licensed hunters, those who are licensed for sport shooting, and "the few who can demonstrate a special need for personal protection," which inevitably limits firearm ownership to the elite and privileged.
The proposed amendment also outlaws "any homemade equipment and machinery ... that can make a gun or weapon that can take a human life" (section 5).
Finally, the proposed amendment says that police officers who carry "shall be subject to comprehensive and continuous monitoring and shall be dismissed if found to exhibit any racist or violent behavior" (section 7) and demands that any American who owns any firearms made illegal under the amendment has only one month to surrender them to the government (section 8).
The proposal was met with a range of criticism.
Some critics noted the amendment would significantly empower the federal government, others noted the proposal itself would violate other parts of the Constitution, while others noted that vague language in the proposal could have unintended consequences.
Fortunately, the Constitution establishes a high bar for amendments — two-thirds approval in Congress and approval by three-fourths of the states, or else a convention of states called by two-thirds of the states, followed by ratification of three-fourths of the states — thus Moore's porposal will never become constitutional law.