(Editor’s note: This is Part Three of a three-part series on the threat to the Second Amendment and Americans’ firearm freedoms.)
I believe the political stars are aligning right now for the opening of a new front in the battle against our gun rights: via the election and work of an anti-gun president, the disarmament passions of the Washington elite and the United Nations, the appointments of gun prohibitionists from the White House to the Supreme Court and the funding of an anti-Second Amendment movement by billionaire progressives like George Soros.
In Part One, I discussed President Obama’s anti-Second Amendment record and his administration’s goals to use dormant treaties and global agencies to loosen the boundaries and binds of the Second Amendment. In Part Two, last week, I further discussed the United Nation’s participation in that treaty development and “consensus” process.
If it weren’t bad enough to have a plethora of government officials in Washington that abandon and abolish the principles of the Second Amendment, it is far worse to have them in the highest court in the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, dutifully designated with the honor to interpret and apply our Constitution to cases across the land, and with lifetime tenure to boot.
To add insult to injury to the degradation of the Second Amendment, months back Obama appointed new Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor with her narrow view of the Second Amendment. Then a few weeks ago, U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said he will retire in June, leaving President Obama with an open field of liberal appointees.
Gun-rights advocate and scholar David Kopel offers a summary overview of how Obama’s potential replacements for retiring Justice Stevens measure up to the Second Amendment:
Strongly ideological, highly committed gun prohibitionist: Harold Koh.
Extensive record of anti-Second Amendment leadership: Secretary of State Clinton, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, Gov. Deval Patrick.
Limited but clearly negative record on right to arms: Judge Diane Wood, Judge Merrick Garland.
Mixed record, but with very little positive: Amy Klobuchar.
Mixed record: Cass Sunstein, Janet Napolitano [negatives include the ridiculous Department of Homeland Security report conflating political dissent with terrorism; as governor she signed some pro-right to arms legislation, and vetoed other bills], Jennifer Granholm [like Napolitano, a mixed record as governor, including signing some important reforms].
Unknown: Elena Kagan
It’s that “unknown” Elena Kagan who has gun owners particularly concerned at the moment, not only because she’s now Obama’s official nominee but because evidence for her beliefs on gun control is extremely scarce. Then again, does anyone suppose Obama’s desire to appoint her infers her conservative stance on the Second Amendment?
The gist is that none of Obama’s proposed nominees has any firm respect for the Second Amendment, and this “missing link” may become pivotally important if the United Nations passes a gun ban treaty. Any such treaty will conflict directly with our Second Amendment constitutional freedoms, and it’s entirely possible that the Supreme Court will have to resolve the issue.
We are not dealing with the likes of the hapless “Brady Campaign” on the international front. The international work and funding of groups such as the International Action Network on Small Arms, or IANSA, receives tremendous support from anti-gun financial backers like moguls George Soros and Michael Bloomberg. IANSA is made up of roughly 500 non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, around the world that are right now lobbying and working alongside government officials to eliminate the possession of firearms by “non-state actors” – you, me and anyone else who isn’t a recognized government. Not only is it documented that governments like Britain have given $2 million in grants to this London-based organization, but the head of IANSA, Rebecca Peters, has close associations with George Soros and his Open Society Institute, which provides open-hand funding to anti-gun initiatives and its global gun agenda, including in America.
Even UNICEF (the United Nations Children Fund, sponsored by U.S. tax dollars) confesses on its website that UNICEF “has collaborated with NGOs on the child-focused agenda within the (link to) International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA), a forum for over 300 NGOs from around the world to network and undertake advocacy activities.”
The NRA has explained, “Directly and through [Soros’] organization Open Society Institute (OSI), he has funneled cash to various anti-gun groups, such as the Tides Foundation, the HELP Network and SAFE Colorado. He and seven rich friends founded their own political committee – Campaign for a Progressive Future – and spent $2 million on political activities in 2000, including providing the prime financial backing for the Million Mom March. OSI has supported U.N. efforts to create international gun control regulations and has singled out the United States for failing to go along with the international gun-prohibitionists.”
Through the domestic influence of the present Washington regime and the global influence of the U.N. and groups like IANSA, the Second Amendment rights of more than 80 million gun owners in this country are destined for grave jeopardy. No wonder some are calling the gun issue the “new abortion.”
The present administration in Washington doesn’t merely bend, pull and break the Second Amendment, and hence the Constitution, it acts as if there is no Second Amendment at all. If it regarded it with the reverence and respect our founders did, they would not only follow it but enforce it. Could the 27 words of that amendment get any clearer?
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” (emphasis mine).
During the Revolutionary period, even other contemporaneous state gun laws aligned with that federal measure. As Chief Justice John Roberts asked in last year’s Heller case, “If it is limited to state militias, why would they say ‘the right of the people’? What is reasonable about a total ban on possession?” The Bill of Rights either encompasses the privileges of every citizen in every amendment or none at all.
Thomas Jefferson wrote near the end of his life in 1823: “On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
The clear interpretation of the Second Amendment provided the basis for Jefferson to offer this encouragement to his nephew Peter Carr, “Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.”
That same clear interpretation also forever establishes “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, [and it] shall not be infringed.” As George Washington stated, “Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
(For more on how to reawaken America to our founder’s vision and plans for this country, check out Chuck Norris’ brand new YouTube patriot service announcement.)