Eagle Forum has long contended that an Article V Constitutional Convention for proposing amendments would result in the loss of our Second Amendment Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms.
On September 21, 2023, SJR 7 was filed with the California Secretary of State having passed the Legislature. It was an application for an Article V Convention to, “Affirm that federal, state, and local governments may adopt public safety regulations limiting aspects of firearms acquisition, possession, public carry, and use by individuals… and to impose, as a matter of national policy, the following firearms regulations and prohibitions: (1) universal background checks as a prerequisite to purchase or acquisition of a firearm, (2) a prohibition on sales, loans, or other transfers of firearms to those under 21 years of age, subject to limited exceptions, (3) a minimum waiting period after the purchase or acquisition of a firearm before that firearm may be delivered to the buyer or acquirer, and (4) a prohibition on the sale, loan, or transfer of assault weapons (including AR15’s) and other weapons of war to private civilians…”
The vote in the California State Senate was 24 to 11 and in the Assembly 53 to 17 showing overwhelming support for this anti-Second Amendment Article V application. This is the clearest indication we have ever had that an Article V Convention will jeopardize our Right to Keep and Bear Arms. California is the largest population state, will be participating in any Article V Convention, and will have tremendous influence at that Convention. They will lead the other blue and purple states on this anti-gun rights amendment.
Article V does not tell us how many delegates there will be or how they will be selected. “Between 1973 and 1992, 22 bills were introduced in the U.S. House and 19 in the U.S. Senate that sought to establish a procedural framework that would apply to an Article V Convention…The Senate…passed the ‘Federal Constitutional Convention Procedures Act,’ on two separate occasions; as S 215 in 1971 and as S 1272 in 1983.” Source Congressional Research Service, April 11, 2014.
These bills called for proportional representation of States based on the formula for the Electoral College, not one vote per state. So, California would have tremendous influence under this formula.
Phyllis Schlafly often quoted Chief Justice Warren Burger as the highest authority in the United States to ever speak out on a Constitutional Convention. He stated: “I have also repeatedly given my opinion that there is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda. Congress might try to limit the Convention to one amendment or to one issue, but there is no way to assure that the Convention would obey. After a Convention is convened, it will be too late to stop the convention if we don’t like its agenda…”
So if we believe the former Chief Justice there would be no way to limit an Article V Convention and no way to keep California’s anti-Second Amendment application from being considered.
Advocates of a Convention, because of their frustration, have introduced a new way of counting Article V applications. In the past, it has been the assumption that the Convention would be kept to a single subject. Of course Convention of States in their Pocket Guide and at their mock Conventions have suggested dozens of subjects that would fall under their language to “impose fiscal restraints on the federal government and to limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government.” Certainly, limiting the power and jurisdiction of the Federal Government, indeed the U.S. Supreme Court decisions that have struck down restrictive gun legislation passed by states and localities, could fall under the very broad Convention of States Article V application language.
The American Constitution Foundation in their study on how to achieve an unlimited-general Constitutional Convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution, came up with a new way of counting applications. The ACF has linked together applications as diverse as Anti-Polygamy, the Convention of States Project, the Balanced Budget Amendment, applications trying to avert the Civil War, the direct election of Senators, and the Right to Life.
It is astonishing that in ACF’s “White Paper on an Article V General Convention of the States,” they combine Article V Applications from the states to Congress from the year 1789 up to some of the most recent Convention of States Project applications, in order to achieve their stated goal of a general or unlimited Constitutional Convention. Their new way of counting is useful in achieving their ultimate goal of an unlimited general Article V Convention.
The Aggregation Strategy of Article V Convention advocates is a treacherous way to bypass their own failure to achieve consensus in enough states for Congress to call an Article V Convention. Instead, they create a counterfeit consensus, through “aggregation,” to achieve a liberty destroying Article V Constitutional Convention…putting all we hold dear at RISK.
All of us know that Washington D.C. is broken and corrupt, as well as, many of the States. When the States ratified the Sixteenth Amendment allowing direct taxation — the income tax and the Seventeenth Amendment — direct election of Senators, the States destroyed the Founders’ Constitutional separations of power between the States and the Federal government. Through Federal grants and mandates to the States, counties, cities, and school districts the Federal government controls and manipulates the States and local governments.
States like Wyoming receive up to 56.43% of their State revenue from the Federal Government. Some other examples are Alaska receiving 50.83%, Arizona at 47.44%, Idaho at 41.08%, Michigan at 38.66%, and Connecticut at the lowest receiving 31.56%. No Balanced Budget Amendment can ever be achieved until the Red and Blue States reject Federal funding and their mandates. Eight Red States dominate the top ten states receiving the largest percentage of Federal money. No State delegate to an Article V Convention would ever vote for a COS “fiscal restraints” Amendment or a BBA knowing their state would lose a huge portion of their state revenues. Of course, a BBA would require taxes to be raised and for the Balanced Budget restraints to be set aside in case of an emergency. (States Most Dependent on the Federal Government)
COS tells us that the only answer to America’s problems is an Article V Convention. But, there are other answers. Elections are one. And recently States have begun to push back against Federal Bullying. Texas is a prime example. They have passed laws to deal in their state with the massive illegal immigration invasion. The State of Texas has also established a Bullion Depository so citizens can store their precious metals for safe storage and along with Tennessee and Utah have made gold and silver legal tender as allowed by the U.S. Constitution Article 1 Section 10. This will be a protection against the Federal imposition of the total freedom destroying Central Bank Digital Currency. Many other States have started pushing back including Arizona, Kansas, South Carolina, West Virginia, and Wyoming. This is very encouraging. The American people are waking up because of the invasion at the Border, bankrupt education, inflation, the Covid lockdown and vaxx, and the rigged election.
An Article V Constitutional Convention is the worst answer for our nation’s problems. All the states in the Union will be participants. As long-time Eagle Shirley Spellerberg said, “That’s downright scary to consider putting our sacred Constitution in the hands of compromised and corrupt politicians who are supposed to fix it. You can bet that the first thing to go would be our Right to Keep and Bear Arms, next our Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Speech and Assembly.”
We must reject the very dangerous Article V Constitutional Convention of States.