A commonly expressed concern about an Article V convention of states, is that it could undermine our 2nd Amendment rights. It’s easy to understand that fear, given that the MSM pushes the narrative that the vast majority of Americans favor restrictions on our right to bear arms. But that is a misrepresentation of the American people, and the likely outcome of a convention of states. The reality is that an Article V convention is far more likely to strengthen our right to bear arms, than to undermine it.
In 2023, a simulated convention of states was conducted to demonstrate how the process would likely play out. Commissioners from 49 states attended. The commissioners were not shills from the convention of states movement. They were mostly state legislators, selected from amongst our neighbors. In other words, they were an accurate reflection of those who would likely be selected for an official Article V convention.
Their deliberations were serious, and they put forward a number of proposals; consistent with their commission to address term limits, fiscal constraints, and government overreach. Had it been an actual rather than simulated convention, their proposals would go to the states for ratification. Thirty-eight states would need to approve any proposal for it to become an amendment to the Constitution.
The ratification process means that a mere 13 states could terminate any proposal. No proposal jeopardizing to our right to bear arms, would likely pass, given the level of support the 2nd Amendment enjoys in America.
Constitutional carry laws have been passed by 29 states. The citizens of those states have decided that if a person can legally own a firearm, they can also legally carry it in public without a permit.
Additionally, 13 more states are “shall issue” states. Their citizens have decided that if a person can legally own a firearm, the state must issue a carry permit upon the citizen making application. The person is not required to have a reason to carry a weapon to receive a permit.
That is a whopping 42 states that enable citizens to carry firearms in public as they go about their daily activities. Is there any scenario in which a least 13 of those states would not refuse to ratify any attempt to infringe on our 2nd Amendment?
The reality is that proposals from a convention of states are more likely to enhance rather than undermine our God-given right to the tools for self-defense.
Let’s examine the constitutional proposals that came out of the simulation – which are likely to be similar to any created by a genuine convention of states. The commissioners at the simulated convention of states proposed an amendment that would allow a simple majority of states to abrogate any statute, decree, order, regulation, rule, opinion, or other action originating from the legislative or executive branches (past, present, or future). That would be the “They can pass it, but they can’t keep it unless we agree” amendment.
Out of our 42 firearm-friendly states, a mere 26 could overturn
- Assault rifle prohibitions,
- Red flag laws,
- Restrictions on firearm accessories,
- Restrictions on private gun transfers, and
- Prohibitions on DIY firearm projects.
Another proposal from the simulation was that Congress may not delegate rule making to the executive branch that involves interstate commerce. In addition, it revises the definition of “interstate commerce” to: the buying, selling, and transportation of commercial goods.
That would mean that executive agencies, such as the ATF, could not unilaterally implement regulations affecting products sold across state lines – like firearms. Regulations affecting things like bump stocks, magazine capacity, and pistol braces would require open debate and approval by Congress. If the abrogation proposal were also ratified, such regulatory changes would also be subject to cancellation by 51 percent of the states.
The reality is that the risk to our 2nd Amendment posed by a convention of states is simply fear mongering by those opposed to challenging the power of the federal government. There is far too much support for the 2nd Amendment, for any restriction of our right to bear arms to meet the ratification hurdle. The greater likelihood is that amendments resulting from a convention of states process would provide greater power to the states to protect our right to bear arms, by rolling back attempts by the federal government to limit our access to the tools of self-defense.
If you would like to be counted among the Idahoans standing with Convention of States Action to protect our right to bear arms, visit www.conventionofstates.com/idaho to sign the petition and see volunteer opportunities.
