By Roger Katz
I know that the issue of gun control is hard. . . . I know it’s political. I know it’s controversial. I say to you, forget the extremists! It’s simple — no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer, and too many innocent people have died already! End this madness — now!
That’s from New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s State of the State speech, January 10, 2013, five days before he signed the New York SAFE Act into law, asserting his fervent hope that it would produce the “toughest assault weapons ban in the nation.”
Reinstating the federal assault weapons ban that was in effect from 1994 to 2004 would prohibit manufacture and sales, but it would not affect weapons already possessed. This would leave millions of assault weapons in our communities for decades to come.
Instead, we should ban possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons, we should buy back such weapons from all who choose to abide by the law, and we should criminally prosecute any who choose to defy it by keeping their weapons. The ban would not apply to law enforcement agencies or shooting clubs.”
That’s from an op-ed by Representative Eric Swalwell, Democrat, California, published in USA Today, on May 3, 2018; urging for a mandatory and universal ban on “assault weapons.”
Never in the history of this nation have we seen such blatant, such willful, such outrageous and confounding assaults on the Second Amendment as we have seen during the first two decades of the 21st Century. This essential unalienable right—the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a statement at once succinct, categorical, and clear—serves as the linchpin and cornerstone of our free republic.
The Second Amendment is an ever-present reminder that government serves at the behest of the people, not at its own pleasure for its own benefit and aims.
The Second Amendment: The Cornerstone Of American Liberty
The Second Amendment serves a threefold purpose:
One, it signals that ultimate power and authority resides with the American people, not in government; never in Government.
Two, the Second Amendment operates as an omnipresent reminder to those who serve in government—and who, either through deliberate design and chicanery or through mere reckless conduct, oppress the American citizenry and who seek to impose tyranny on the people—that Americans have, by dint of force of arms, both the means and the moral obligation to reclaim power from usurpers. And…
Three, the Second Amendment encapsulates the immutable idea of the sanctity, autonomy, dignity, and inviolability of each American citizen.
What does this third salient point mean? Just this: each of us is ultimately responsible for his or her life, safety and well-being, and each of us is responsible for his or her own happiness.
The ownership and possession of firearms is a potent symbol of the value the Founders of a free republic placed on the worth of each American. This fact isn’t lost on the radical Left in this country that seeks to divide Americans into specious groups of “victims” and those who would enslave them.
The Left does this to play one group against the other. It is a game called “identity politics.” But, why is the radical Left employing this, and who is really behind the Left’s efforts?
Consider: There exist individuals in the world today who have amassed vast wealth. That wealth is concentrated in but a few hands. These individuals also wield immense power and they exert that influence in business, in our institutions of government, in education and in the massive media sector.
They perceive the U.S. Constitution to be inimical to their goal—the goal of a one world government, grounded in one uniform political, financial, social, cultural, educational, and legal system of governance.
They see the United States, a nation of great military might, as one with great potential for them—one that can serve them well. But there’s a catch. The U.S. Constitution doesn’t permit subordination of the United States to any other nation, group of nations, or interest groups.
That presents a problem for them. They see the mass of humanity as an inchoate, mindless, dangerous elemental force of nature; less governed by reason and more by instinct. They see this unruly elemental force of nature as one requiring constant control, guidance, supervision and structure: top to bottom rule. That portends absolute subjugation of a free people, and an open invitation to tyranny.
These so-called elites seek to control the lives, actions, and thoughts of Americans. They will not abide an American citizenry that has, as a matter of right, access to firearms. So, they denigrate the Second Amendment.
They have determined that Americans must be reeducated; they must learn to view gun ownership and possession as a vestige of an earlier time, an earlier age, no longer necessary or acceptable in a modern “civilized” age of globalization and neoliberalism, over which they, alone, seek to rule, and rule with an iron fist.
The arguments against firearms ownership and possession are delivered endlessly to the public through both a compliant press and through accommodating politicians. That’s how propaganda works, and it has, unfortunately, worked well on many Americans.
But it is a long, tedious, drawn-out process. These elites have patience, but their patience is growing thin, and they are adopting new, ever more egregious methods such as boycotts and direct legal actions against gun manufacturers.
And, they are contriving new ways to attack NRA, and they are attempting to drive a wedge between NRA and its members—millions of Americans.
Through a miscarriage of justice, the Connecticut Supreme Court, in the recent case, Soto v. Bushmaster, overturned the comprehensive well-reasoned decision of the lower Connecticut Superior Court. The State Supreme Court ruled that plaintiffs — the estates of those killed at Sandy Hook and survivors — can proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer, even in the absence of privity between the gun manufacturer and plaintiffs.
That plaintiffs may proceed with their action against the gun manufacturer turns products liability law and the law of torts on its head. The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court is also inconsistent with federal law. The case is an egregious example of Courts legislating from the bench. Those jurists who detest the very existence of the Second Amendment, do not hesitate to use their judicial powers to subvert the Second Amendment.
If plaintiffs prevail in their lawsuit, gun manufacturers may very well go out of business. The Soto case poses a serious challenge to the Second Amendment.
The case is likely to go up to the U.S. Supreme Court, whichever side prevails. If the high Court takes the case, the decision that is handed down will have the most serious impact on the Second Amendment since the seminal 2008 Heller case and the subsequent seminal 2010 McDonald case. The Arbalest Quarrel will, in a subsequent article, provide a comprehensive analysis of the Connecticut Supreme Court decision, given its singular importance and significance.
Apart from using the courts to subvert the Second Amendment, anti-gun groups are waging war on the Second Amendment on the legislative front, both in Congress and in the States. The attack being waged against the right of the people to keep and bear arms in Congress and in the state legislatures, on the one hand, and in the state and federal courts, on the other hand, constitutes two simultaneous avenues of direct assault on our sacred Second Amendment.
If a Democrat wins the White House in 2020, expect to see the Second Amendment attacked by the new chief executive, issuing a flurry of executive orders to curtail exercise of the fundamental right embodied in the Second Amendment. President Obama attempted to do that. Hillary Clinton would have continued to do so had she prevailed in the 2016 election. And, a Democrat taking the Oval Office in 2020 will most certainly continue that effort.
Candidates running for the Democratic Party nomination have made their strong antipathy toward the Second Amendment plain. At a recent CNN sponsored town hall event, Democratic Party candidate Kamala Harris stated, in no uncertain terms:
Upon being elected, I will give the United States Congress 100 days to get their act together and have the courage to pass reasonable gun safety laws. And if they fail to do it, then I will take executive action.
Misuse of the office of the President by an anti-gun Democrat would constitute yet a third front against the Second Amendment. Worse yet for the American people if Democrats secure majorities in both the House and Senate in 2020.
This scourge of those who oppose the Second Amendment, who rail vehemently, endlessly, sanctimoniously against our nation and its unique history, against our rich cultural heritage, against our Judeo-Christian ethic, and against our sacrosanct and inviolate Constitution–must be thwarted. We stand to lose everything we hold most dear if we fail.
Roger J. Katz has practiced law for the federal government in Washington D.C., for the state government in Arizona, and has been in private practice in Ohio, New York, and Arizona. Roger is a co-founder of Arbalest Group LLC, creator of the Arbalest Quarrel weblog, dedicated to strengthening the Second Amendment, preserving our Bill of Rights, and maintaining a free republic.
This article was originally published at arbalestquarrel.com and is reprinted here with permission.