I’ve just completed some meetings and other duties with the NRA, and I wanted to get some of these thoughts out there, in case anyone finds them useful. There is a lot of work going on, and I’ve never been so encouraged by the efforts I’m seeing move forward. As a disclaimer, these opinions are mine, personally, and I do not speak for the NRA or anyone else in this statement. This is long, and potentially a bit repetitive on points of significance, but I felt it important to say.
We are nearing midterm election time, and a lot is at stake. I don’t have any particular love for many of the positions of either of the two major parties, but the reality is that the Democrat side is embracing socialism and statist oppression so openly that it is hard to ignore the potential consequences of Democrat legislative control of either chamber at the federal level and losing ground in the states. The candidates in the NY State AG race are actually arguing over who will more voraciously wield the power of the state in trying to drive the NRA out of business to silence the voice of their political opposition. We have some favorable odds to retain a Republican U.S. Senate just with the luck of the draw with the seats that are up, but we still need good turnout to retain it. Dems only need to gain about 24 seats to flip the House, and there are between 65 and 75 or so contested races that are within a few points, nationwide. It’s close. In addition, Governorships and legislative races at the state level could affect redistricting that would make it very hard to have anything other than a Democrat majority in the House for years to come, so those races are just as critical.
Personally, I am something of a gun rights single issue voter, in that regardless of the merits of any other positions of a candidate, I weigh support for 2A rights as a prerequisite before even looking at other issues, and most of my friends and associates fall in that category as well. I believe those rights to be too important to do otherwise, especially at this time in world and national events. Fortunately, a candidate’s stance on gun rights usually follows along with many of the other positions that are appealing to me as well, and if I can find a pro-gun, fiscally conservative, social libertarian, then I’m fairly happy. If you fall in that category of voter and are disappointed that we’ve achieved no forward legislative progress in the past two years of a Republican-held House and Senate on gun rights, I’m with you. But, I also spend enough time lobbying and working with lobbying efforts to understand that our simple majority by party is not a majority on many issues that I hold dear. Personally, I’d love to see the NFA gutted, or at the very least, Hughes repealed and silencers and SBR/SBS completely removed from NFA purview, nationwide no-permit carry, as well as many other positions that might be considered “extreme” by anyone who doesn’t understand or love freedom quite so much, or understand that these measures actually increase the safety of our country. On the side of “just give us a common sense inch,” I’d love to see basic nationwide reciprocity passed without poisoned amendments, and that shouldn’t be hard—one would think. (That one is the fault of current Senate leadership for not having the fortitude to bring it to a vote.)
The unfortunate reality is that we were actually dangerously close to additional ANTI-gun legislation this year on rate accelerating devices and “bump stocks” that could have effectively banned all replacement triggers that was steamrolling toward the legislative floor and had enough bipartisan support in both houses to pass due to the emotion of the moment and not actually understanding what the legislation actually was banning—a common theme. There were some even worse bills on the table including the possibility of another national AWB this year, and the lack of understanding of what printed firearms were all about almost ended up with legislation banning those, with potential far-reaching second and third order effects from that, as well. Without the NRA, these measures likely would have passed. That’s a fact, and I dealt with it through our Magpul lobbyists, as well. It was a steamroller, and disaster was very narrowly averted. Yes, I’m not happy that it was even close, and I’m certainly not happy with some of the other legislative shenanigans in other areas, but the alternative would be far worse with Dem control of the legislature and the committee chairs, even if we had the hope of a Presidential veto to hold the line.
One thing we are winning at, and that has potentially saved the Republic in my eyes, is in judicial appointments. We are about to finally have an actual solid 5/4 court on the basic individual right to own a firearm in the U.S. Supreme Court (USSC). We have been extremely close on that in previous decisions. We are likely not ever going to turn NY, CA, NJ, and other liberal enclaves legislatively back to more firearms freedoms, so the path to that is through the courts, and we could potentially get AWBs, magazine restrictions, etc., declared unconstitutional with the right court composition and granting cert to the right cases. We will need the USSC and Trump’s appointees to do that, and in the background, Trump and the Senate have confirmed 60 constitutionalist-leaning judges in federal courts across the country, changing the balance in two district courts, with 40 more appointments planned before the midterm and another 40 or so after. This is important to the fight for ALL freedom with more judges who interpret the constitution rather than attempt to legislate statist ideals from the bench. If we had lost the 2016 Presidential election to the Dems, this option would be dead, and we would potentially have the basic individual right to own a firearm (incorrectly and unconstitutionally) struck down by the courts. Like Trump or not, without him being the one making appointments right now, the Second Amendment may have died in this decade.
So, we need a strong showing this fall to keep, and ideally, expand control of both chambers. Please get out and do your part, and encourage others to do the same. The anti-freedom groups are motivated, organized, and well-funded. Bloomberg has pledged to spend $80 Million in house races alone.
Just as a reminder, as they are sometimes bad at talking about things like this effectively, we likely would have had some of the previously mentioned negative legislation passed were it not for the NRA, and we certainly would have ZERO chance of having any positive legislation without them. I know it’s fashionable these days to accuse the NRA of not being “hard core” enough, and yep, some of the statements have left me a little disappointed. Folks need to understand that there are plenty of people within the organization and staff that are very aligned with my viewpoints. There just isn’t the political possibility of achieving those things right now, and that’s a real, and unfortunate, fact. We were very close to having the votes for HPA passage, although not many of our elected officials want to take that up right now, and we are still very close to national reciprocity passage, but the legislative vote numbers on repealing NFA, ditching all provisions of GCA ‘68, repealing Hughes, etc., aren’t even close. That’s unfortunately not something we can change without changing the entire political and public opinion landscape right now—which will take some time, and a lot of effort from all of us. We all need to work toward that.
Please understand that “taking a hard line, no compromise stance” publicly is great for fund raising and grass roots activation—and the goals behind the scenes can be exactly those no compromise positions, as they are in the offices of the NRA—but if a legislator doesn’t believe it’s in his or his constituents’ best interests or will keep in office to support something… your stance isn’t going to sway him. The facts may… but they also may not. That’s the wonderful thing about lobbying—some of the folks you are talking to couldn’t care less about the facts. That’s right… some don’t care. At all. Show them a 4-foot pile of evidence that their anti-gun or even lukewarm stance on guns is detrimental in every measurable way, and they still might not care. Some of them only care about how things poll for their next election, and that’s it. Republicans in purple districts are hard to get to support pro-gun measures sometimes because they know it will potentially lose them their seat to a Democrat challenger—and there may be no better candidate in that district that has any chance whatsoever of beating a Democrat challenger, so you’re stuck with either the soft R or the hard D. House and Senate leadership don’t want to tackle issues like that that may lose them control of their chamber due to the lost seats, and thus the ability to control the legislative agenda at all, plus the loss of the ability to support judicial appointments, pass budgets, etc., which is worse for the entire country, and can immediately undo anything that they DO pass. It’s a messy, flawed system. But, it’s what we’ve got to navigate. When you demand a mile and refuse to take a foot when one is offered, you’re not going to move forward in this environment. All or nothing nearly guarantees that we get nothing. The antis actually LOVE it when we draw lines in the sand that prevent any progress at all for our side, and LOVE it when we are bickering among ourselves as to who is signalling more 2A virtue.
The reality is that the NRA is your only real viable voice in the fight for gun rights in these circles. Other gun groups are great at promoting “hard line” positions publicly—and BZ for them doing so— because they aren’t risking policy achievement by doing it, as they don’t have the horsepower to even be included. They publicly state a hard line position, file a few amicus briefs maybe, send out some emails to fire up the grassroots base (which actually is an important factor) and they cash your check. I’m not saying don’t support them, because that grassroots activation is effective, as are some of the legal efforts! We need their efforts, also. The NRA, however, actually gives you a voice in this jacked up circus of the DC beltway, in the best way to actually influence policy—because they actually have a seat at the table. Unfortunately, sometimes that requires, at least to all public appearances, taking a certain position in order to achieve certain ends. Believe me when I tell you that it’s extremely frustrating to many of the staff to have to do this, just as much as it is for many members to see it. This is how change is effectively achieved, though, when larger movements are impossible. Everytown and other anti-freedom groups absolutely want all guns banned, period, and this has been leaked or reported on in one form or another for some time. But, in most cases, their public positions are for “common sense safety measures” and “reasonable restrictions,” and having the tactical patience to take our freedoms an inch at a time helps them to get to where they want to go. We have to be willing to win our freedoms back in the same way from a legislative perspective while we also charge forward with the legal strategy that may transform the national landscape for the better in a far more immediate fashion if we can get enough people on the bench that actually believe in the founding documents of our nation.
That legal fight is what can’t be forgotten. Other groups, like FPC, etc., do some great work, as well, but the legal battlefield on which the NRA plays is incredibly significant. Heller and MacDonald, getting the anti-gun ballot measures stricken from the Oregon ballots, the cases which have expanded concealed carry around the nation, injunctions in CA, ad nauseum—all of these had the hand of the NRA, and with the change in judicial landscape, more will come. The NRA is currently fighting what is potentially one of the most important First Amendment legal battles in our nation’s history, fighting a State supported effort to drive an advocacy out of business because of its beliefs, and the NRA will prevail. Even the ACLU has backed the NRA in this effort, as it’s SO critical to preserving freedom of speech and preventing government from killing opposition using the power of office. This case may have far reaching effects on government censorship that affects the very ability to speak out in opposition of government at all, and could potentially be used to shut down the entire firearms industry by denying basic business services, should we lose.
Want the NRA to be able to get more done? Want things to actually get passed? Want to get more real pro-gun legislators elected? The way to achieve that is with numbers. The NRA is at its highest membership numbers, ever, but there are around 6 Million NRA members and over 100 Million U.S. gun owners—conservatively. If just another 5 percent of U.S. gun owners were members, the ability to influence policy would improve significantly. As powerful as 6 million members can be, a lobby with the power of 10 or 12 million members is so significant as to not be able to be ignored. The NRA is currently under attack, because the anti-freedom opposition knows that the NRA membership can affect elections. The enemies of freedom are doing everything they can to force the NRA to the sidelines in this midterm, because they know the effect the NRA can have.
What can you do? First, become a member of the NRA. Become a five-year or life member if you are already an annual member, so you can vote in the board elections, also. Then encourage family, friends, neighbors, people you see at the range, co-workers, etc., to also become members. With membership, we have more say on the national stage. Join other groups you believe in, as well. Support other efforts, or start one yourself. But…it doesn’t cost much to be an NRA member, and just the publications and other benefits make it worthwhile as a gun owner, let alone the cause you are supporting. So, do that first.
Then, become active this fall. Vote. Don’t be apathetic, even in races where you think we’ve got an easy victory. Every vote does count, and the enemy is motivated. Encourage others to vote. Help to educate others on the issues. Support a candidate if you can. This could potentially be one of the most important elections in the history of our nation, and it is absolutely imperative that we all do our part to promote a victory for freedom.
Are you a NRA member? What will you do to support the pro gun movement leading up to the midterm election? Share your answers in the comment section.
Sign up for K-Var’s weekly newsletter and discounts here.
Hello;
Having just read this post, I decided to throw my two cents in and to also ask a question that has been bothering me for some time. That question being; Does the government really have the lawful authority to regulate firearms and to do so in the manner in which they have done? The Firearms Act of 1934 being just one example of overzealous regulation as it places silencers in the same category as machine guns as well as also creating the “short barrel rifle” category and with such regulations being ridiculous in so many ways.
In reviewing the comments section of many gun blog articles one can usually find comments from various readers in which they make mention of the need to change the gun laws and/or express their anger over how our 2nd Amendment Rights are constantly under attack and have diminished over the years. Well I have a simple question for you; How interested are you really in responding to the cries of such readers that are looking for some real meaningful action that could be taken towards putting an end to all of this anti-gun rhetoric and to the unconstitutional actions of government, as well as to restoring the Rule of Law?
I believe I know the reason why what we have today is a “watered down version” of the Second Amendment, and that reason is tied to the following:
A long time ago I received this little piece of advice; “Never argue the amount”… Now you may be wondering what is meant by this short phrase so please allow me to clarify what is meant.
If for example you were to receive a billing statement for say $10,000 from some entity that was unknown to you and that you owed no liability to, what action would you take? Would you call them to argue about the amount? Well if you did then this would be taken as an admission that you do in fact owe some amount and then it simply becomes a matter for the other party to negotiate with you in order to find out just how much they could extract from you and to get you to agree on what you are willing to pay to settle the matter. However, the correct thing to do would be to immediately disavow any and all liability and to completely and totally reject the presentment as fraudulent and to refuse to pay any amount no matter how small.
Now with regards to our “Right to keep and bear arms”, we have continuously received presentments (in the form of proposed anti-gun legislation) and our collective response has always been to “argue over the amount” when in fact we do NOT owe them anything. Follow me here and allow me to show you where I believe the error and the fraud has been committed to push forth the notion that government has the authority to regulate the firearms industry.
I will try to keep this short, but in summary, the Rule of Law in this country incorporates the notion that there is a hierarchy of law with the Constitution being at the very top and supreme above all else. But the government has done an end run to get around the Second Amendment by asserting their right to having this authority by virtue of the so called Supremacy Clause and also the Commerce Clause that are contained within the Constitution. However, when one examines these clauses we can see that there is a blatant misinterpretation and misapplication that has taken place here.
Article IV, Section 2 of the Constitution is where we find this “Supremacy Clause”. But have you ever bothered to read and understand the full text? What follows is a short review of what it says:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” Did you get that? The phrase, “Which shall be made in pursuance thereof” makes that entire statement conditional. In order for the laws of the United States to be included under that umbrella of being considered the “supreme law of the land” those laws MUST BE MADE IN PURSUANCE THEREOF!!! The hierarchy of the “rule of law” remains and stands with the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land and with the laws of the United States under it but…with only those laws that are in harmony and not in conflict with the Constitution. They lie to us when they say U.S. law is supreme. Remember that it was the states that came first and that created the federal government. And so how can that which is created ever be greater than that which created it?
“The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” – Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137
“An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
Constitutional Right – “A right guaranteed to the citizens by the Constitution and so guaranteed as to prevent legislative interference therewith”. – Delaney v. Plunkett, 146 Ga. 547, 91 S. E. 561, 567, L. R. A. 1917D, 926, Ann. Cas. 1917E, 685. – Black’s Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition
”The Constitution is a legal binding contract between the government and its employer (the American people). The U.S. Supreme Court was right when it said, “The Constitution is a written instrument and as such its meaning does not alter; that which it meant when it was adopted, it means now!”” U.S. vs. South Carolina (1905)
*** And we only need to review the many quotes left to us by the Founding Fathers to see what their collective intent was with regards to incorporating the Second Amendment into our Constitution. Clearly there was never intended to be any such “sporting purpose” requirement in having a gun… But if there had been any ‘sporting purpose’ it would no doubt have been the shooting of tyrants as the Founding Fathers made very clear their views for what their true purpose was in having the Right to keep & bear arms to be so strongly and deeply secured to the people of this nation.
Now the other argument, and the one I believe that got them their anti-gun laws passed, is the argument that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution gives the federal government the right to regulate all commerce. However, here too there are conflicting issues and no doubt this argument was intended to be used as an end run in order to specifically get around the Second Amendment. In Article I, Section 8 (Clause 1-3) of the Constitution it says: 1) “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2) To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3) To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States and with the Indian Tribes;
This entire section, and/or this part of the Constitution, is what spells out and lists the specified very limited “enumerated powers” granted to the federal government by the Constitution. The clear intent of Article I, Section 8 was to only grant specified limited powers as a way to limit the federal government’s authority. The word commerce was, and still is today, considered to mean the commercial and social intercourse between citizens of different states or nations. The federal government was being granted the very limited power to regulate that traffic of goods between the different states and other nations so as to provide a level playing field between the states whereby no state could impose duties and taxes on another state. Of particular importance here, is the prevention of protectionist state policies that would favor state citizens or businesses at the expense of non-citizens conducting business within that state. And this is in fact specifically spelled out further down in Article I, Section 9, Clause 6 where it says: “No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obligated to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.” This was and is the intent for granting and allowing the federal government to have the authority to regulate commerce. It was a limited grant of authority and was never intended to give the federal government the authority to be able to arbitrarily ban the manufacture or sale of goods that were and always had been legal to own. This granting of power under the Commerce Clause was in fact intended to be limited, for if not, then the federal government would surely have full power and authority over the whole economy, the whole system of exchange and all interrelated gainful economic activity throughout the entire country… and with this clearly being something that the Founding Fathers would have surely been against.
But also bear in mind that the Commerce clause involved only the granting of a limited authority to the federal government to regulate “interstate” traffic of goods and did not include nor impact in any way the “intrastate” movement of goods. And so if a company manufactures goods and then limits its sales to only residents within the same state of manufacture then the federal government has absolutely no authority to regulate any such activity… Or at least that is the way it was supposed to be… until we allowed the Feds to usurp more power and authority than was granted to them under the Constitution.
But then also let us not forget or overlook the all important order of things as they actually happened. The fact that the Constitution was drafted and then submitted for approval and with many of the Colonists and the Founding Fathers voicing their concerns that the document did not restrain and limit sufficiently the powers of the new federal government. And so there was drafted the first ten amendments to the Constitution in order to more fully restrain and limit the power and authority of the federal government. And just like a codicil to a Last Will & Testament alters and permanently changes the provisions and the directives of the original document, so too do amendments to the Constitution alter and/or help clarify and also permanently change the provisions and the directives of the original document. And so when the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution, it was worded carefully using the commandment words of “Shall Not” and the word “Infringe” to make clear that this Right is to be protected against any and all violations or interference with the people’s Right to keep and bear arms. And then furthermore, the Tenth Amendment covers anything that might have been overlooked by saying; “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Furthermore, I also believe that it is very disingenuous to apply the argument of the Commerce clause to force anti-gun legislation on the American people when doing so clearly introduces a conflict between the provisions of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Second Amendment which came later to update the document and which as a result applies the greater force as it supersedes that which came before it, and also ignores the obvious intent of the authors. The use of the Commerce clause in this instance is no doubt an attempt to do an end run around the Second Amendment. But in addition, and at the very least, this application of the Commerce clause to push forth anti-gun legislation introduces ambiguity. And if we look to how courts settle disputes over ambiguity in contracts we see that the general rule is for the courts to rule in favor of the lesser party and against the party that drafted the contract. And so in this case that would be in favor of “we the people”, the citizenry of the United Stated that is being subjected to the greater harm. The only way to have properly settled this issue of ambiguity would have been to formally clear the matter up completely via the application of the constitutional amendment process by putting forth the required effort of introducing a new amendment to the Constitution that would specifically address this issue. But this of course was not done and has never been done. There has never been any alteration or change to the meaning of the Second Amendment. And so “the Right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall Not be infringed” remains as the very explicit directive to the government as it most certainly continues to be “The Supreme Law of the Land”.
As an example, please remember that the 18th Amendment made Prohibition on alcohol the “Supreme Law of the Land” and that no act of Congress or Presidential Executive Order could undo Prohibition. It took the passage of the 21st Amendment to finally undo the mistake that was Prohibition.
This should begin to make clear to you that there has been throughout the history of these United States an orchestrated and intentional attempt at seizing ever more power on the part of the federal government. And that furthermore, all of that increase in power in the hands of government has been to the detriment of the American people. And that the disarming of the American people has in fact been, and continues to be, part of the long term plan of those holding that power behind the shadows of government. For they most certainly know that they can only win and remain powerful if they have a monopoly of force.
“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. Prohibition of firearms is the goal”. – Janet Reno, Former Attorney General
“We need to brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way” – Eric Holder, US Attorney General (and yes he really used the word “brainwash”)
“All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party.” – Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6, 1938
The above is part of an essay I wrote on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms which also includes the legal argument in opposition to the government’s overreach and to its claim of having the authority to regulate firearms and I would be happy to share it with you and to have you read, review and or comment on it. I believe that if you take the time to read and absorb what is here that you will agree with me that this argument presents itself logically and that this argument has merit. Yet I do not know of anyone ever having argued these points in any case in which the “Right of the people to keep and bear arms” was ever being defended in a court of law. And I really for the life of me do not know why these points have never been argued as it is right there in plain sight. I am no legal scholar however, I do read and understand the English language fairly well and these points jumped right off the page for me when I examined the text of the Constitution.
However, I will also add here that I have found that in trying to share this information with others that there is great resistance. Making this simple request to review this information has somehow been a kin to asking someone to touch that all too dangerous third rail and as a result it seems hardly anyone wants to touch this issue. I am not asking you nor anyone else for anything more than to read my writing and to review my legal argument and then to comment on it and to state whether or not you see it the same way. I am inviting people, anyone at all and especially someone with a qualified legal background such as a constitutional lawyer or law professor to review my argument and to try to punch holes in my argument. I am willing to accept whatever criticism is thrown my way if they can logically attack my argument, and to also please tell me where exactly they believe it is wrong.
And so will you take and accept the challenge?
I believe that the pro gun lobby has it all wrong. The current laws do not need to be changed, they need to be invalidated. The Second Amendment does not need to be defended, it needs to be invoked and asserted. There are two axioms of law that I think apply here. The first is that, “If you do not know your Rights then you simply don’t have any”. And the second is that, “If you do not raise an objection then you do not have one”. A Right that is not asserted and invoked is a Right that in practice unfortunately does not exist.
I welcome a response from anyone reading this. My intent here is to bring forth an argument that I do not believe has ever been considered or applied in defending our Right to keep and bear arms and to expose the governments unconstitutional over reach of authority in putting forth anti-gun legislation with the end goal of possibly securing enough support for mounting a real and meaningful challenge to the anti-gun movement that has been allowed to take hold in America. In other words, to fight the fight that really should have been fought from the beginning by the so called pro-gun lobby but that has never been fought or even argued, and that as a result has led to our current situation of having a totally watered down version of the Second Amendment.
My complete essay is available upon request for your review.
Best regards,
AC
“Every single treaty the Indians made with the U.S. Government was broken by Washington; The U.S. Constitution is the treaty that the American people have with the Federal Government, and it too is now also being broken”. — Russell Means, Indian activist.
“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.” – Arthur Schopenhauer
Thanks for the encouragement. So many times when I speak to gun owners I hear people make comments such as but the NRA this or the NRA that. I as I am sure as others have heard, talked to people, “I used to be a NRA member but because of ….. they are no longer members. I have asked them, if you don’t always agree with your wife, mom dad, do you never speak to them again? They tell me Of course they don’t. That is then I explain to them it is no different with the NRA. I have been a Life member for many years, and I would be lying if I said I always agree with every move the NRA makes. Every gun owner has got to understand that, and either join or rejoin the NRA, just imagine if we had 20%, 30%, 40% even 50% of gun owners members! I would emphatically say ALL gun laws and anti-gun laws would be erased from the federal, state and local law books. Please everyone that reads the article above if you are not a NRA member join, if you are no longer a member rejoin if you do, we can once again make America free from the anti- American gun laws.
Larry A Schillinger
NRA Benefactor Life Member