Plan Beyond 2020 or Lose Our Rights

StephanieFrey, iStock-163270563
Plan Beyond 2020 or Lose Our Rights, iStock-163270563

United States – -(AmmoLand.com)- The presidential election next year is going to be very important in determining the future of our rights. It will not be the only big story – there is the pending Supreme Court case involving gun regulations in New York City which will see a ruling issued in 2020. Second Amendment supporters need to plan for the aftermath of both of these – not just if the results are bad news, but also if they have successful outcomes.

Planning for bad news is important – if you fail to plan, you are essentially planning to fail, and that is one area of strategic incompetence that Second Amendment supporters should not tolerate. Plan for contingencies, whether it is a landslide loss of a national election, a mass shooting in your locale, if a local business prohibits lawful carrying of firearms, or if an anti-Second Amendment extremist in office decides to emulate Andrew Cuomo’s abuses.

But there also has to be a plan to follow up on a successful outcome. The Supreme Court is likely to issue a ruling on the merits of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. City of New York, New York. That ruling will, in all likelihood, strike the regulations in question down on Second Amendment grounds – the only question is the rationale they will use to do so. In this case, a successful outcome will involve the court invoking strict scrutiny with regards to Second Amendment claims.

What did not get much attention was a brief filed by five United States Senators, led by Sheldon Whitehouse, all of whom have horrible records on your Second Amendment rights. For all intents and purposes, the brief threatened court-packing if New York City lost the case. One of those Senators signing the brief was Richard Durbin, the Senate Minority Whip. Let that sink in: The number two Democrat in the United States Senate was on board with threatening to pack the Supreme Court if it upholds the Second Amendment.

While that ruling would be a great victory that will shift the political landscape on Second Amendment issues, that brief should tell any Second Amendment supporter that the ruling will not be the end of the fight. There will still need to be challenges to the onerous laws in states like California and New York. Those will have good chances of ultimate success, but even after we strike down bans on modern multi-purpose semi-automatic firearms, the various licensing schemes, and a host of other infringements, the battle will not be over.

In fact, the important battle will be taking place as these court cases go on. It will be to persuade our fellow Americans to let these rulings stand. This battle will be crucial, as a ruling invoking strict scrutiny for laws challenged on Second Amendment grounds will be widely denounced in the media. They will be targeting your fellow Americans with a campaign to stoke fear and hatred of anyone who stands up for the Second Amendment. Combine that with pushes for corporate gun control, Silicon Valley censorship, and financial blacklisting, and you can see why the fight would just be starting.

In essence, to defend the favorable ruling, Second Amendment supporters will need to ensure that the White House and Senate remain in the hands of pro-Second Amendment officials.

The key, though, is to find which of our fellow Americans can be persuaded to oppose the efforts to overturn a failed ruling. The successful arguments will differ with each of them: Some will be persuaded to oppose court-packing. Others will be swayed by the facts. Still others will see the manifest injustice of wrongly punishing millions of Americans who did not carry out horrific deeds through the infringement of their liberties. The right approach and techniques will differ with each American you are trying to persuade.

Planning beyond 2020 also extends to after the election next year. Under the 22nd Amendment, President Trump, should he win re-election, will be unable to run for re-election. Second Amendment supporters will have a big role in figuring out who to support as his successor – and to keep an anti-Second Amendment extremist from threatening the progress that we have made to date. The way to do that is to successfully persuade our fellow Americans to not view the defense of our God-given rights as a deal-breaker, or they will use their God-given First Amendment rights to wipe out the Second Amendment.


Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

Subscribe
Notify of
53 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stripeseven
Stripeseven
1 year ago

Unless those that seek to destroy America are prosecuted for their crimes against the people, these assaults will continue. The Constitution is a “Forever Restraining Order” that was written for government despots. TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242 explains in a language that everyone can easily understand, that deprivation of rights is a federal crime. No one is above the law…

Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill
1 year ago

The main jist here is there are those in power who would that the citizens be disarmed — by any means necessary. Threatening the scotus tells me of what they will do if they don’t get their way. It aint over till it’s over. Socialism is just a façade that covers slavery, poverty and the lack of hope of anything better for ourselves and our children. That is evil, that is tyranny. I have actually SEEN two men die because of cooperate gun control. Not heard about it, not saw it on T.V., I actually watched them die. I was… Read more »

donfranko
donfranko
1 year ago

For those who think this article is BS, and would rather stomp their feet and shoot their guns, think about this: half the army and half of all law enforcement WILL uphold any laws that are voted into existence, including gun control laws. You can scream about it all you want but those soldiers and cops WILL come after your guns, and WILL use “necessary force” to overcome your resistance. If we have the opportunity to stop those insane enough to try and redact our 2A rights, in a court of law, or in elections, we should absolutely DO THAT.… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  donfranko

, Well, not everything voted into a statute is a law. But that is a fine point that would probably be lost on half the military and half of LEOs. So, that is why Constitutionalists must not start the revolt. We must win elections, to keep power, to lure the libtards into revolt. Then we will “help keep order”.

warhorse_03826
warhorse_03826
10 months ago
Reply to  donfranko

I like our chances. we have the numbers. and they know it. the only tactic they have is to scare us into thinking we are not in charge.

https://survivalblog.com/mathematics-countering-tyranny/

9,000,000 ÷ 82,863 = 108 (x 8 officers per team) = 864 raids, per officer

Let that sink in: Every officer would have to survive 864 gun-grabbing raids.

Graham
Graham
1 year ago

You are one stupid little inconsequential moron. I will NEVER loose my rights. Rights are quintessentially inherent. No permission needed or sought.
Why does this A-Whole keep writing this ess ache one tee

Will
Will
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

,keep in mind Harold is just a pissant and NRA stooge.

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 year ago
Reply to  Graham

Yes, you can lose them, at least on paper. In that regard the article is correct.

Will
Will
1 year ago

I bet when Harold was in elementary school he was teachers pet and hall monitor. Just look at his face ! He would whisper to the teacher who was acting up between classes,and get a pat on the head and a gold star.

JIAZ
JIAZ
1 year ago

“Sometimes fighting against evil is not a choice, but an imperative.”
Alpha Four

Will
Will
1 year ago

JOIN GOA ! THE ONLY NO-COMPROMISE GUN LOBBY IN WASHINGTON !

tomcat
tomcat
1 year ago

This article and some of the posters here are painting us as bunch of rowdy, ignorant, bullies that can’t talk to people without alienating them. I take exception to this because I think myself and a whole bunch of pro gun people are able to articulate and speak without making enemies of anyone we are talking to. We are not a bunch of neanderthals and we do not have to negotiate our rights away. The communist machine is big and is getting bigger, realize this and resist it.

Considerthis
Considerthis
1 year ago
Reply to  tomcat

Tomcat, I generally agree with what you say, however you have to wonder whether some of the posters do not belong here. Trolls maybe working to undermine our image. Although civility may be desired, it may be unattainable on a public forum that is open to our opposition. If our opposition has already painted us as negatively as they want to, how much effort should we exert to please them ? How much are we going to take from people that are working as hard as they can to destroy everything we believe in ? They don’t like the firearms… Read more »

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 year ago
Reply to  Considerthis

No, but our allies should expect it and give it to each other, at least.

Roy
Roy
1 year ago

a 100 million man army is what we have. people do not understand what a 100 million volley would do to liberals

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Roy

, an army thinks and acts in a self disciplined and coordinated way. We can not even get along here. What we have is a hundred million emancipated individuals speaking their own minds.

moe mensale
moe mensale
1 year ago
Reply to  Roy

You’re delusional if you believe every gun owner will turn out for a “patriot” army, whether that number is 100 million or something else. There are myriad reasons why many gun owners won’t or can’t participate.

America’s population in 1776 was ~3 million. Approximately 40% (1.2 million) supported the revolution. The rest supported England or were neutral. Of that 1.2 million, ~100,000 actually took to the field. That’s ~8%.

Do you really think today would be any different?

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  moe mensale

@Moe comments like “You’re delusional …. ” to another patriot is precisely why not every gun owner will not turn out for a patriot army. Refraining from insulting others, when one dearly wants to is personal discipline.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
1 year ago
Reply to  moe mensale

I do not Moe. But if SHTF my thoughts are it would take a much smaller percentage to effect a lasting change on the local landscape.

Quatermain
Quatermain
1 year ago

Gun control? Just say no. Reload and repeat as needed.

Considerthis
Considerthis
1 year ago

Harold has the Freedom to make all the plans that he wants. What insures that Freedom ? The Original Plan – The Second Amendment. The Democrat party is now completely open about opposing Freedom ( the Original Plan ) for Citizens of the United States. Foreign enemies lose importance as we realize we have enemies on our front steps. It seems about half of our fellow citizens have thrown in with the enemy. It was not the plan that Patriotic Freedom Loving American Citizens would have to fight for Freedom right here in America. That is the plan of the… Read more »

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
1 year ago
Reply to  Considerthis

I think our Founding Fathers were in fact quite afraid of what they were creating getting out of control. Hence all the checks and balances. What they couldn’t plan for is the apathy so rampant in today’s American citizen.

Jeff
Jeff
1 year ago

Excellent article Harold! All the noise we make about “defending our God-Given rights” won’t do a thing to persuade the voters (who’s support we need) to become 2A supporters. Face it: We’re losing political ground as we see historically pro-gun states like VT, PA, VA, FL and even TX struggling to limit gun control laws. In fact, historically Red states like VA, GA, FL & TX are slowly turning purple. If/when the Dems win and take control (if not in 2020, then in 2024) it’ll be critical that we’ve followed the path you referred to: Winning the hearts and minds… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff

, You are over looking the democrats digging their own political grave. If we just be cool, and let the democrat party shock the voters with radical screeching, we might be better off.

I Haz A Question
I Haz A Question
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff

Nonsense. There are very high hurdles for amending the Constitution. Not only would Congress need to approve a repeal by a supermajority, but the President would need to sign it, and then 38 States would have to ratify it. That means that it only takes 13 States to oppose a repeal and kill it. Seeing that we now have 15+ States with Constitutional Carry – with more considering it – I think we have our answer. The 2A will never be repealed. Instead, it will be abused and ignored by uber-Left states such as CA, NY, IL, et al.

moe mensale
moe mensale
1 year ago

The President has no part in an amendment process.

Amendments can also be proposed through a constitutional convention although that approach has never been used so far.

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 year ago

And my state of WA.

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff

Well said!

Toph3
Toph3
1 year ago

My plan is to utilize the 2A as it was intended to be utilized against tyrants. Not just talk, like 90 million armchair patriots, but actual asymmetric full-on war, including the execution of all traitors involved in the attempt to strip Americans of their rights. I’m damned sick of what the cancerous vermin have done to this country.

StWayne
StWayne
1 year ago
Reply to  Toph3

You sir, are talking of Revolution! How dare you identify the enemy with a rancorous cancer, that’s just racist! Worse yet is that you support the 2A, when it’s your brain that’s cancerous. It’ll take me weeks to get over your words, so to my safe space I go! As for punishment: three years in solitary confinement should set you right…left!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  StWayne

, Humorously sarcastic or is it sarcastically humorous.

KenW
KenW
1 year ago

I know that Harold isn’t the usual AmmoLand posters favorite 2A poster boy, but in this case I think he is right on. The Democrats are deliberately bastardizing the Impeachment process. There have been 19 actual Impeachments by the House of Rep. Fifteen were judges, one senator, and three POTUS. Once THEY, although unlikely and even less likely after last nights “Breaking News,” Impeach President Trump, you can bet that Neil Gorsuch, and Bret Kavanaugh are next. President Trump gets criticized by pro 2A supporters here but remember this: If Hillary was POTUS, Barack Obama and Eric Holder might be… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  KenW

@KW, I like everything you said, except the first paragraph. Harold is too willing to compromise our rights away a little at a time. We are sick of hearing it. He will not change our minds.
So by constantly trumpeting compromise, Harold invites derision. It would be rude not to accept.

Gindy
Gindy
1 year ago

Apparently the vitriol towards Harold is so strong, that even if he does make sense in any way, the automatic response is to shut down the discussion and slap another label on him. (I’m positive that the same response will come to me for this also.) Long term planning makes a great deal of sense in everything we do in our personal lives and certainly in a business world! By NOT planning on a long term course of action for our Second Amendment rights, in several directions, it limits us to a small window of reactionary measures to actions that… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Gindy

Hmmm, Gindy. Never saw this one post here before. Mischaracterization within the first three words, and expects us not to challenge that. Changes the subject in the second paragraph and then goes back to her first idea in the third paragraph. That is the product of an organized mind. Last paragraph is just name calling.
Nope, nothing substantive.

moe mensale
moe mensale
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Once upon a time you made your first post also.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  moe mensale

@mm, That is true. We’ll see if she comes back. If not, she may be a new graduate from the troll farm, or an account under an alias (to get more votes), or one of several schizophrenic alter egos.

moe mensale
moe mensale
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Whether she comes back or not isn’t relevant. That she can express her viewpoint freely is relevant.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  moe mensale

@Moe, Yes, even if she is the most annoying of paid trolls. And I am free to tug at the loose ends in her arguments.

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@OV, Gindy Hutchison! That is funny!

Gindy
Gindy
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

What in the world gave you the impression that I was a woman? Or did you just assume it was so from the name or the reply I wrote. Perhaps you are an expert at assumptions! There was no mischaracterization in any part of my reply. You just didn’t like it so the assumption was that it must be so. I didn’t change subjects in the second paragraph but got to the actual point of my reply and continued on with the point from a slightly different perspective in the third paragraph. In my fourth paragraph there was no name… Read more »

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Gindy

@Gindy, vitriol: acrimonious, rancorous, mordant, acerbic, trenchant, or splenetic. Your use of vitriol is pretty much a mischaracterization. Maybe, it is a word that you heard and equated with “something bad” and never looked it up.

Gindy
Gindy
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Yes it is bad. And it clearly describes your replies to every article Harold writes. Perhaps a simpler word such as ‘hatred’ would have been easier for you to understand.

Nonetheless having a simple discussion with you would be difficult unless you’re the moderator!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  Gindy

@G, Clearly you have not read my diplomatically limited replies to Harold’s work. Those who describe Harold’s articles in clearer language use it for … lucidity!

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

Harold is often right and often wrong depending on one’s personal opinion. I dislike the vitriol than some use to attack him and others with whom they disagree.

loveaduck
loveaduck
1 year ago
Reply to  Gindy

I agree in full. It’s easy to express a no holds barred response and more difficult to state things in a controlled, respectable manner. I want no messing with the Bill of Rights by the Dems or anyone else but scaring people or needlessly insulting them accomplishes one thing, more folks becoming anti-gun. Hold the ground but do it with care and thoughtfulness. Planning is essential.

Will
Will
1 year ago
Reply to  Gindy

@Gindy,I agree,Harold is an idiot that doesn’t have clue what he’s talking about regarding the 2A.

Ansel Hazen
Ansel Hazen
1 year ago
Reply to  Gindy

I have an interesting idea. NOT ONE MORE INCH. No further explanation needed. No continued drawn out process of compromise.

Will
Will
1 year ago

Damn,almost made it through the day without this moron chiming in,,,again !

Truth
Truth
1 year ago
Reply to  Will

LOL. Come on……..give him a little credit for trying ….

KenW
KenW
1 year ago
Reply to  Truth

Considering that he Harold that is, is right!

Wild Bill
Wild Bill
1 year ago
Reply to  KenW

@KW, Harold is left.

Will
Will
1 year ago
Reply to  Wild Bill

@Truth,he’s The little engine who could (couldn’t)