The End Game – Ban All Guns

By Roger J. Katz, Attorney At Law
Strategies For Destruction: How Antigun Groups Subvert The Second Amendment.

End Game Ban All Guns
The End Game – Ban All Guns
The Arbalest Quarrel
The Arbalest Quarrel

New York, N.Y. –-( There are many strategies antigun zealots use to undermine the Second Amendment.

Let’s take a look at a few of them. One way is through enactment of Federal and State Statutes. At the moment we have hundreds.

The antigun zealots push for more. They try to hoodwink the public. To do so, they bide their time until a calamity occurs. Then they pounce, exploiting personal misfortune shamelessly.

The tragedy at Newtown, Connecticut gave the zealots a grand opening. They took it. They attacked gun ownership directly and tried to ban many firearms under the fiction of “assault weapons.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat from California, tried to push through an ambitious assault weapons ban following the Newtown incident. She did this successfully once before. She and her colleagues in the Senate passed the first assault weapons ban, dubbed “AWB,” two decades ago, in 1994. It wasn’t as strong as she wanted. Former Democratic President Clinton signed it. And the Nation bore it for 10 years.

Fortunately, the “AWB” had a sunset provision. It expired in 2004. Congress didn’t renew it.

Fast-forward 9 years. A lunatic decides to shoot young school children. The incident provided the antigun groups with the ammunition they sought to resurrect the “AWB.” This time Dianne Feinstein pulled out all stops. She wanted a bold “assault weapons” ban. This new bill, modeled on NY SAFE, failed miserably.

NY SAFE is a State Statute. New York residents can thank Governor Andrew M. Cuomo and the State Legislature for it.

If Feinstein’s 2013 bill had passed, the Nation would have suffered New York’s fate. Antigun groups learned something from Feinstein’s embarrassing failure. They learned that banning guns outright doesn’t work on the National stage. And most States won’t follow New York’s example.

Colorado tried and two Legislators lost their heads over it. So, the antigun crowd tried a different tack: deception and pretense.

Don’t go after guns directly. Attack the Second Amendment around the edges. The tactic now is background checks. This isn’t new. Shortly after signing the assault weapons ban in 1994, President Clinton signed into law another restrictive gun measure: a background checks law. It’s referred to as the “Brady Law.” Despite the hoopla and fanfare, it’s a dud as an anticrime measure. Prosecutions don’t exist. The “Brady Law” is a step toward universal gun registration. That’s its silent but true purpose.

On its 20-year anniversary “The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence,” kicked off its latest campaign: “enhanced” background checks. The Arbalest Quarrel discusses this in its March 2nd blog post. Take a look. Our site is

By seemingly retreating from its goal to ban all guns in this Country, The Brady Campaign hopes to blindside the public. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also calling for background checks. And other antigun groups are following suit.

Antigun zealots use various catchphrases with this new push for background checks. They include: “common-sense gun laws we all can live with,” “reasonable gun regulations,” “a sensible middle ground,” and similar claptrap.

As the annual NRA meeting got underway in Indianapolis last week, the antigun group, “Mom’s Demand Action” held ( actually tried but failed) their “Stroller Jam” in the City, adding their own slogan to the mix: “it’s time for gun sense in America.”

So, we see a new strategy among the antigun zealots. This latest incremental assault on the Second Amendment isn’t direct. The antigun zealots have shied away from talk of gun bans – at least for the moment.

They attack the Second Amendment “obliquely” through statutes that thwart gun ownership, but don’t ban guns outright. If successful, the antigun zealots will target guns and gun possession directly. That’s their endgame.

Another way antigun zealots attack our sacred Second Amendment is through the device of international pacts and treaties. Only the U.S. President can use this device but we know President Obama is open to antigun measures. After all, Obama’s an antigun zealot. Last September Secretary of State John Kerry signed, for President Obama, an international arms trade treaty, called the “ATT.”

On the surface this Treaty aims to control the multibillion dollar illicit arms trade. But, it also impacts domestic weapons transactions. Apart from the United States none of the signatory Countries has a Constitution embodying the individual right to keep and bear arms. And the Treaty is inconsistent with that right.

Proponents of the “ATT” deny this of course. But, the “ATT’s” negative impact on the “right to keep and bear arms” is clear. If I buy an imported gun, I must register it. So, the Treaty trumps the U.S. Constitution.

Now Congress hasn’t yet approved the “ATT” and likely won’t. Will Obama enforce the “ATT” anyway? Can he? There’s been no public debate on the “ATT.” The mainstream media doesn’t talk about it. And it’s troubling that a President may sidestep Congress on critical matters – those that impact our sacred “Bill of Rights.”

Consider too: President Obama has other instrumentalities at his disposal to defeat the Second Amendment, including “signing statements” and “executive orders.” These instrumentalities thwart Congress and the People. In fact, Obama has threatened to use executive orders if Congress fails to pass new, restrictive gun laws. This is a naked power grab.

A third way antigun zealots may attack the Second Amendment is the most direct and involves either rewriting the Second Amendment or repealing it outright. Of course, outright repeal won’t happen – at least for now.

Outright repeal is a blatant act and would signal the end of the United States as a Republic. Such a move would invite rebellion. Suppose someone were to redraft the Second Amendment. Consider what this means. Retired United States Supreme Justice John Paul Stevens aims to do just that. In his recently published book, Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, Justice Stevens, suggests a change.

His redraft of the Second Amendment is this;

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.”

His rewrite turns the Second Amendment on its head. The fundamental “right of the individual to keep and bear arms,” as embodied in the independent clause of the original, is lost. In Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment, emphasis is on ‘militia.’

How he defines the word is anyone’s guess. Does ‘militia’ mean ‘national guard?’ Well, the U.S. President can call a State’s National Guard into federal service. The Second Amendment in its original form is a check on the Federal Government’s power. The early idea of ‘militia’ and the modern notion of ‘National Guard’ aren’t the same.

Stevens’ proposed revision destroys the Second Amendment right as our Founders imagined. Suppose ‘militia’ refers to a State’s police forces. Well, a State may exercise its police powers. That’s an inherent State privilege. So, Stevens’ redraft adds nothing to a State’s exercise of its own police powers. But on another interpretation Stevens’ redraft destroys a State’s police powers if such power draws from the Federal Government. If so, police powers do not rest in the States. They rest solely in the Federal Government.

But, on any interpretation of Stevens’ redraft “the right to keep and bear arms” is no longer a right of the “People.” That point’s clear. Also, Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment sets the foundation for a conflict between Government and the “People.” On balance Stevens’ proposed redraft of the Second Amendment is worse than outright repeal, disastrous as outright repeal is.

We can only ponder. What’s Stevens’ agenda? Who’s he serving? But this we know. Stevens cares little for our most sacred Right!

Readers are encouraged to view additional comments and gun law analysis on the “Arbalest Quarrel” website. Click on the link: As always, we value your comments.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

No, they don’t want to “ban all guns”. They just want to ban OURS. The government isn’t going to give up THEIR guns. They just want to turn us into “subjects” instead of “citizens”. I say, BRING IT!

Lee Barclay

Isn’t it just a matter of which horror you’re willing to suffer as a result of whatever position you take on
“gun control” or unilateral domestic disarmament ?
We’ve reached the point now in the culture wars where we’re damned if we do , and we’re damned if we don’t .


Does anyone really think that some on the Court don’t get some money from some seriously nasty anti-Americans injected into their family for their decisions. Seriously, do people looking at the way liberals and judges operate around the Country think there isn’t money for their decisions. And the Supremes were once at that level–of course they get some $$ for the right thing when it is pressing. It is not that they are above reproach, it is that they are above investigation!


The VA is trying to take guns away from Vets who have any mental disability even though they have not committed any crimes. This is a back door effort of the administration to make a broad sweep and disarm hundreds if thousands, if not millions, of veterans who served their country honorably, from WWII to The Gulf Wars. During Viet Nam peace nicks burned their draft card and ran to Canada. When it was over they were allowed to return and got no punishment. Now one guy who they say had PTSD shoots people and the VA and government wants… Read more »


He is 100% correct, he will not do anything, he will leave that to AG Holder, BATF&E, FBI, US Marshall, etc etc etc.

Remember, Obama has a cell phone and a pen.

“I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people’s lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away. I will not take your rifle away. I won’t take your handgun away,” President Obama said at a campaign event in Lebanon, Virginia in fall of 2008.


It is interesting to note that, back before 1968 (not the “Old West” mind you, this was the days of the Hippies and the Viet Nam war), felons were allowed to own guns, and no one had to get a background check to buy a gun. We had no greater (and arguably much less) “gun violence” in the country back then, so you really have to wonder how useful the current background check requirements have been in their stated goals. The only thing they have apparently accomplished is to make the process of buying a gun somewhat more difficult and… Read more »


IF the un and this administration have their way this country will be disarmed post haste and then the gangs will really be out in force providing the DICTATOR with all he or it needs to impose his form of martial law. IF this happens then you can bet a lot of people are going to disappear in short order. This thing that is posing as a supposed president has even gone so far as to say that people have no right to own guns, he said this while he was supposedly in college. This DICTATOR that is ruling this… Read more »


“If there’s a gun or ammo you want, good luck finding it”.

Old Salt

When any politician of any stripe infringes on my 2nd Amendment rights in any way I have to ask myself “What does this politician have in their agenda that they fear would encite law abiding armed citizens to violence?” We are at a tipping point with the Fedral Government now, I give you the Nevada stand off with the BLM. Armed BLM and Army personel aiming guns at American citizens! What were these people thinking?
We had better turn this around now or it will be another revolution.


Yeah,baby,get rid of those and my homies need a break. Lets go back to those days of the straight razor which put more people,on a Saturday nite,in the emergency room than any gun did. The guns will be gone but we still be here and we know where YOU stays at.

Dave from San Antonio

Just remember…”If you like your gun and ammo…you can keep them..”