NRA: Where Are You?

Since its founding in 1871, the National Rifle Association (NRA) has evolved as the foremost defender of Second Amendment right to bear arms. Challenges to those rights are a constant. These come about with more frequency following a terrible event such as the massacre by an Arizonian gun bearing madman whose killing spree captured the attention of the nation.

The NRA holds steadfast, at the slightest court challenge it is there to defend the 2nd Amendment. It will not allow any tinkering however slight let alone a repeal of such a sacred Constitutional right.

The NRA is obviously well aware that there are accidents, murders, assassinations and other crimes with the use of arms, but holds that it is not the gun that kills or commits the crime; rather it is a person. It further argues that there is no need for a constant barrage of new laws let alone changes to the 2nd Amendment; it’s a matter of vigorously enforcing existing laws.

Their position is based on the logical sequence were there not to be such vehement defense. More restrictive laws would either slowly or rapidly erode the 2nd Amendment and would eventually lead to Constitutional changes or its abolition. So it becomes imperative for the 2nd Amendment’s preservation to not allow encroachment.

I agree with their stance, and suggest to the NRA that attacks to other Constitutional amendments follow the same logic of sequences that would also begin the process against the 2nd Amendment. It follows, if a group successfully challenges any Constitutional amendment, the door opens to challenges on other amendments. And part of the argument that there should be no changes or tinkering with Constitutional rights would be met with the case in point of a successful challenge.

The NRA approach is correct – do not allow the start on such a road. The NRA must also realize that an assault on one Constitutional Amendment is an assault on all and vigorously oppose attacks to the 14th Amendment, which in part reads:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A group of state and federal elected officials are attempting to resolve an immigration issue with ill-advised attempts at weakening the U.S. Constitution by introducing legislation calling for denial of citizenship to certain children born within the jurisdiction of the United States.

The attempt or passing a law with such exclusion is an affront to our Constitution, as the 14th Amendment’s Section 1 clearly commands that “no State shall make or enforce any law,” which would abridge the privileges of citizens – birthright citizenship is one such Constitutional privilege.

Such officials undertaking this task are clearly misguided in their attempt at challenging and rewriting the Constitution out of their own biases and extremist mentality. In their state of blindness they do not see their assault on the Constitution.

As unlikely as it would be, suppose a law is enacted denying certain children birthright citizenship as provided by the 14th Amendment. Further, assume that the court challenges take the case to the Supreme Court and once there the Court upholds the law and denies such citizenship. Now what?

Let’s not discuss whether ICE personnel will surround hospitals, handcuff babies and escort them to the border or to the nearest airport to get them out of the country.

Rather let’s discuss the door that is opened to further assaults to the Constitution.

There would come the day when the political inclination of a state regarding the right to bear arms would pass a law banning arms in their state. Then the process of court challenges leading to the Supreme Court final ruling begins its march. Or it may not be about arms, it could be about making exceptions to “due process of law” or about limiting free speech, or excluding other groups of children from birthright citizenship, or any other challenge to Constitutional rights.

Shudder that the Supreme Court would then have a majority of Justices be of a political philosophy favoring such changes and have at their disposal precedence of legislative and judicial Constitutional changes.

NRA we await your voice.

Patrick Osio is Editor of He can be reached at: Read other articles by Patrick.

2 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Loucleve said on February 2nd, 2011 at 9:03pm #

    Geez, you dont suppose this guy has an agenda, do ya?

    Your argument might hold water, were it not a fact that illegals purposely have kids knowing that they become citizens, and then the family can all pile on legally.

    Yes, we definitely need to change the birthright citizenship clause.

  2. Hue Longer said on February 2nd, 2011 at 9:24pm #


    Who is “we”?