The REAL Threat to Gun Owner Rights: A Runaway Federal Government

(Author's Note: this article highlights a course of action for American gun owners to overrule any future federal regulation, Presidential executive order, or Supreme Court decision that restricts or diminishes Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. This course of action is independent of court challenges to federal rulings harmful to Second Amendment rights. As explained herein, the key to truly protecting gun owner rights in America is the nation's legislators in the 50 state governments)

American gun owners and advocates for Second Amendment rights are increasingly concerned (and rightfully so) about the sanctity and guarantee of Second Amendment rights. As discussed herein, the real and most immediate threat to Second Amendment rights comes from some people holding high office in the federal government, including members of the federal judiciary.

There are many people living in America today who for one reason or another, believe that the Second Amendment to the US Constitution does not absolutely guarantee American citizens the right to keep and bear firearms. Among these people is Hillary Rodman Clinton and many of her followers who believe that like other constitutional rights, Second Amendment rights are subject to "reasonable regulations", whatever this means. These people also believe that the Supreme Court is wrong on the Second Amendment, referring to the Heller decision where the court found that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

Given the above environment of opposition to gun owners' rights and the possibility of the Heller decision being overturned or substantially weakened by a future Supreme Court, a way must be found (independent of court challenges) for the gun owning public to override onerous federal regulations, Presidential executive orders, or court decisions that diminish Second Amendment rights. Many, if not most Americans, do not realize that they, acting through their elected state legislators, can indeed have this powerful, essential override power.

This power resides in Article V of the Constitution which is called the "amending article". Article V gives state legislatures the authority to call for a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution. The proposed amendments would then have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures to become part of the Constitution and law of the land.

Such a convention of states could be limited in scope to propose amendments to 1) impose fiscal restraints on the federal government; 2) limit the power/jurisdiction of the federal government; and 3) limit the terms of office for its officials. One possible amendment that could be proposed is to give a super majority of state legislatures (30 state legislatures) the power to override any federal regulation, Presidential executive order, or Supreme Court decision that is untenable to the majority of people living in those states. Other amendments that could be proposed include a bona fide balanced budget requirement for the federal government and an amendment that would establish term limits, i. e., limit total years of service, for members of Congress and the federal judiciary. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a limited convention of states "-- -is a risk worth taking."

A nationwide effort called COS Project is currently underway to have at least 34 state legislatures (required by Article V of the Constitution) call for a convention of states to propose amendments to the Constitution. Because one of the proposed amendments could allow 30 state legislatures to override any federal regulation, Presidential executive order, or Supreme Court decision, especially a federal ruling that restricts or diminishes gun owners' rights, this project needs to be actively supported by gun owners throughout America.

However, a group called National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) opposes the convening of a limited convention of states. The reasons for this opposition are based either on misinformation about or misrepresentation of the facts concerning a convention, desire to maintain the status quo, or some other reason. Hence, it is useful to review the most common objections to a convention of states along with rebuttals as follows:

1) Some people opposing a convention of states falsely characterize it as a “constitutional convention” as if the purpose is to rewrite the Constitution. This is not the case. A convention of states will propose amendments to the existing Constitution — the only difference is that amendments will be proposed by delegates from at least 34 state legislatures rather than proposed in the usual way by members of the US Congress.

2) Opponents to a convention of states often voice the threat of a “runaway convention” where rogue amendments will be proposed and approved by a majority of convention delegates and then eventually ratified by 38 state legislatures. There are several reasons why this will not happen, but perhaps the most convincing reason is the fact that as stated herein, ratification requires affirmative votes by at least 38 state legislatures. Each state legislature (except for Nebraska with only one legislative chamber) has a House of Representatives and a Senate meaning that a total of 76 individual legislative chambers (75 if Nebraska is included) must approve an amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution. It is very difficult indeed to believe that a rogue amendment (such as revising the text of existing amendments, eliminating the Supreme Court, or requiring property ownership in order to vote, etc.) would receive passing votes in both Democrat and Republican controlled legislative chambers in all 76 legislative bodies! Not going to happen.

3) Opponents to a convention of states fail to realize or admit that there are additional reasons and safeguards that prevent rogue amendments from being proposed and considered by delegates to a convention: a) any amendment outside the stated purpose for a convention of states is subject to adverse legal challenge by members of the US Congress which could involve years of litigation; and b) convention delegates can forfeit their delegate positions and be subjected to fines and/or criminal penalties if they propose or vote for any amendment outside the stated purpose of the convention. Two cases in point are the Indiana and Florida state legislatures which passed bills stipulating in effect that a delegate proposing or voting for a rogue amendment at a convention of states is guilty of a “class D felony” (Indiana) or a “felony of the third degree” (Florida).

4) Opponents to a convention of states often say that there are no rules or procedures established for a COS, so how do Americans know what will happen? The fact is that a group called the Article V Caucus has been regularly communicating to establish rules and procedures for a forthcoming convention. Thus far, over 250 lawmakers have joined the Caucus, and draft rules/procedures for a convention have been produced. These draft rules/procedures are available for public review.

Given all the above, American gun owners need to strongly support the efforts of the COS Project in each of the different states. As of August 2016, calls for a convention of states (resolutions or bills passed by state legislatures) have been successfully made by eight legislatures (Alaska, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee).

Information about the project and how to become involved can be found at www.conventionofstates.com.

America and the gun owning public truly need this convention of states so that proposed amendments can be made not only to protect Second Amendment rights but also effectively limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government. America's Founders foresaw a day when this could be necessary, and that day has arrived.

Paul Gardiner is a retired Army officer, gun owner and concerned citizen living in Hoschton, Georgia.