The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns constitutionally guaranteed right to “to keep and bear Arms” (Second Amendment). The Democrat candidates for President of the United States seem to be vying for the most outrageous statements. Conservatives are aware that Democrats want to get rid of the guns of Americans, but they have always denied the possibility of confiscating them. However, they can no longer deny their intent to take away guns.
During the fourth round of the Democrat debates, Presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke exposed the real plan of the Democrats. “If the high-impact, high-velocity round when it hits your body shreds everything inside of your body because it was designed to do that … Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47, we’re not going to allow it to be used on fellow Americans anymore.”
O-Rourke claimed that confiscation of these guns is constitutional and would not go against the Second Amendment because it would be accomplished through the Commerce Clause. Do you have any idea what the Commerce Clause says? Progressives like to use this clause for all kinds of purposes according to The Blaze.
The Commerce Clause is a critical part of the Constitution because it is a favorite of progressives who want to grow the size and power of government. For over a century now, it has been used to justify the federal government intruding into all kinds of local, and even personal economic activity.
In fact, during the debate over Obamacare, some lawyers and judges even tried to claim that it was the Commerce Clause that somehow gave Congress the power to force you to buy health care.
The Commerce Clause is otherwise known as Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. It gives Congress power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian.”
The Blaze article explains that the word and is an important word in this clause. It says that Congress has the same power “to regulate commerce” between the states as it has with foreign nations. In other words, if Congress can regulate commerce with foreign nations in a certain way, it can do the same between the states.
United States v. Lopez (1995) was a case brought before the U.S. Supreme Court where the government sought to use the Commerce Clause to prohibit the possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school. The Court ruled that the Commerce Clause cannot be used in this way.
According to The Blaze, Justice Clarence Thomas supported the decision but wrote his own concurring opinion. He explained that the Commerce Clause can be used to regulate something in interstate commerce only if it makes sense in this sentence: Congress has the power to regulate ______ with foreign nations. Can Congress regulate how far from a school a gun can be possessed in a foreign nation? The answer is an emphatic NO. Therefore, Congress does not have that authority under the Commerce Clause to regulate the same between states.
This takes us back to the O’Rourke statement where he claims the Commerce Clause gives authority to confiscate an AK-47 or an AR-15. Let’s use the above sentence to see if his statement is true. Congress has the power to regulate possession of AK-47s and AK-15s with foreign nations. This is an untrue statement because foreign nations will decide about the guns under their own authority. Therefore, the statement of O’Rourke is untrue.
O’Rourke claims that Texans support the confiscation of their guns, but he offered no proof. However, a gun shop in Tempe, Arizona, decided to earn some money off O’Rourke’s claim. Alpha Dog Firearms ran a “Beto special” on AR-15s and AK-47s. The store discounted AR15s so low that “EVERY AMERICAN can afford one.” The deal was for $349.99 and was available only online. It quickly sold all the guns offered on the deal. It does not seem that Americans are ready to give up their guns, so any confiscation would lead to another civil war!