Yes, dating back to the 1990s and Bill Clinton’s assault weapons ban, Democrats have long supported limits to our right to gun ownership they would never tolerate for speech, expression, assembly, and the right to privacy, etc.
But seldom has a Democrat come right out and said they would support outright gun confiscation.
Though he’s not likely to win the Democratic presidential nomination, Robert “Beto” O’Rourke made it perfectly clear in a recent interview that if, by some chance, a Democrat-controlled Congress and president managed to pass a law banning semi-automatic rifles they call “assault weapons,” he would support armed confiscation of those weapons if Americans refused to turn them in.
In an interview with MSNBC, O’Rourke couched his comments in a “government buy-back program” — that is, a law that required the government to buy banned rifles from Americans. But if people refused to turn them over to the government, he supports sending law enforcement officers to those homes so they can confiscate the guns by force.
And in doing so, he essentially supports the slaughter of cops because at some point Americans are simply going to refuse to cave on a basic, fundamental constitutional right (call them whatever you want but semi-automatic rifles are firearms and, thus, specifically protected from bans and confiscations by the Constitution).
That ‘infringement’ clause. Infringed = taken away; limited; denied.
What’s also offensive about O’Rourke’s statement is that it was made in the context of ensuring that Americans “follow the law.”
But what about a president and a Congress following the Constitution? We shouldn’t have to rely on the Judicial Branch to right that kind of wrong. The Second Amendment could not be more plain; you can’t infringe on our “right to keep and bear arms.”
And yet, this happens constantly. Left-wing Democrat-run states and cities have been getting away with passing and enforcing gun control laws for decades. And while some legal scholars claim that states and cities have a right (under federalism principles) to pass such laws, there is clear legal and constitutional precedent arguing against the imposition of gun control.
Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution contains what is known as the “Supremacy Clause,” which states that federal law and the Constitution supersede state and local laws when they conflict:
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.
As if that weren't clear enough, there is also the Doctrine of Preemption, a legal concept based on the Supremacy Clause. Thus, when applying the Constitution and the law as it should be, O’Rourke and his Democrats can never appropriately pass a ban on any instrument that is defined by law as a “firearm.”
They are not only specifically protected by the Constitution, the Second Amendment has been upheld by the Supreme Court as an individual, not a state, right.
But Democrats don’t have much use for the Constitution or, at least, the parts of it that get in the way of imposing their authoritarian agenda. It’s just a pesky obstacle to be sidestepped, explained away, or ignored outright.
As for confiscating Americans’ firearms, O’Rourke will never have to be responsible for attempting that. He has as much chance of becoming president as Barack Obama does at this point.