Liberty Updates

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Much has been reported in recent days about the manner in which the FBI “trapped” President Trump’s former National Security Adviser, retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, into lying in an early 2017 interview. Under federal law, it is strikingly easy for unethical federal officials to successfully play a game of legal “gotcha” with individuals they decide to target. This is precisely why we must insist on maintaining the highest ethical standards for federal investigators and prosecutors, which tragically did not happen in Flynn’s case.

What the FBI — then under the leadership of the since-discredited James Comey – did to Gen. Flynn constitutes a blatant violation of the most basic ethical principles which federal investigators and prosecutors are sworn to uphold. The fundamental ethical foundation according to which these men and women, including Comey and former Special Counsel Robert Mueller — whose office prosecuted Flynn — is best captured in a speech delivered by then-Attorney General Robert Jackson in early 1940.

Jackson’s remarks, delivered at the Justice Department to the assembled United States Attorneys, concluded with this eloquent statement supposed to undergird the duties of these powerful officials:

“The qualities of a good prosecutor are as elusive and as impossible to define as those which mark a gentleman. And those who need to be told would not understand it anyway. A sensitiveness to fair play and sportsmanship is perhaps the best protection against the abuse of power, and the citizen’s safety lies in the prosecutor who tempers zeal with human kindness, who seeks truth and not victims, who serves the law and not factional purposes, and who approaches his task with humility.”

Revelations in just the past week illustrate how completely government agents strayed from Jackson’s admonition in their case against Flynn: targeting him for partisan political reasons when there was no evidence of any underlying violation of any U.S. law, cleverly lulling him into a sense of confidence that he was discussing matters of mutual interest with fellow employees of the same administration and finally springing the trap shut by threatening the one thing the agents knew would be more important to the him than even his own career – that of his son.

The first vehicle by which the federal agents targeted Flynn was something known as the Logan Act, a centuries old but never used federal law prohibiting civilians from engaging in diplomacy with foreign governments. Not only was there no evidence to justify an investigation of Flynn beyond even a preliminary inquiry into whether this law had been violated, but it would not even apply to an official in his position.

Ultimately, the noose Mueller’s band of partisan prosecutors hung around Flynn’s neck is a law that often is used by federal attorneys – 18 U.S.C. §1001.  This is the single count to which Flynn plead guilty in late 2017 (and for which he still awaits sentencing). It is this non-descript law that is in many respects a “prosecutor’s best friend” because of its broad scope.

Make no mistake, this section of the federal criminal code is legitimate and serves a valuable public purpose if properly utilized. In essence, the provision makes it a felony to “knowingly and willfully” lie to a federal agent. Unlike a number of other, similar federal and state crimes such as perjury, however, a person can be convicted of violating “Section 1001” (as the section is commonly known) without having been first placed under oath; hence its broad reach.

This “1001” language also can be found in the small print on almost every federal form that individuals sign, including most banking forms, federal assistance paperwork and so forth. It truly is a trap for the unwary and the dishonest. Its use in the Flynn case, however, demonstrates that a legitimate and well-intended law, when placed in the hands of overly zealous investigators and prosecutors, becomes a cudgel by which federal agents can punish those with whom they disagree.

Hopefully, Bill Barr, the current Attorney General of the United States, will heed his predecessor’s 1940 admonition, and bring to justice those who so blatantly abused their positions of trust in targeting Gen. Flynn.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003 and was the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia from 1986 to 1990.  He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Last December I suggested that conservatives hold off uncorking the champagne when the Supreme Court agreed to hear oral arguments on its first major gun rights case since it decided District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and McDonald v. Chicago two years later. On Monday, my cautionary note proved prescient. The High Court once again sidestepped providing jurisprudential support for the fundamental right to possess a firearm.

In what has become a recurring theme for conservatives looking to Chief Justice John Roberts for a degree of constitutional backbone in protecting individual liberty against government overreach, he sided with the more liberal members of the Court in not taking a position.

The case before the Court (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York) involved a New York City ordinance that prohibited even the few New Yorkers permitted by the Big Apple’s police department to have a gun in their home, from transporting it to any location outside the city’s limits, even if necessary to practice at a lawful gun range.

In taking this case for consideration, the Court appeared ready at long last to put some teeth into its 2008 and 2010 majority decisions (which included Chief Justice Roberts), that declared the right to possess a firearm as guaranteed by the Second Amendment, to be an individual right rather than a collective right as favored by the more liberal justices and by gun control advocates like former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

 New York City officials were not asleep at the switch, however, and once the High Court agreed to take the case for decision, they cleverly rescinded the gun-transportation ordinance; notwithstanding their earlier argument that it was “essential” for protecting the public. Their gambit appears to have worked.

On Monday, a majority of Supreme Court justices, including neophyte Associate Justice Kavanaugh and Chief Justice Roberts, sided with the Court’s liberal bloc in a 6-3 decision declaring the case to be moot; thereby sidestepping the underlying and important questions about the law’s constitutionality. Protecting Americans’ right to possess a firearm free of prohibitory restrictions imposed by local government, once again has been brushed aside for another day.

There is, perhaps, at least a bit of a silver lining in this latest dark cloud hanging over gun rights in America.

The dissent, authored by Justice Alito and joined by fellow Associate Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, clearly and forcefully laid out the reasons why the New York City law was abhorrent to the Second Amendment’s fundamental purpose.  These justices also argued that the case was anything but “moot.”

Hopefully, this dissenting narrative will provide legal ammunition for federal and state court judges, who far too often defer to state and local governments that have enacted regulatory barriers severely limiting individuals’ ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Noteworthy also is the position taken by Justice Kavanaugh in his concurring opinion. In it, the newest member of the High Court said the Court has a responsibility to address these important gun rights issues, and that it should consider doing so “in one of the several Second Amendment cases .  .  .  now pending before the Court.”

There are in fact a number of cases as described by Kavanaugh awaiting decision by the Court whether to grant review; including some that present even clearer evidence of government overreach than did the New York City case did.

We can only hope that the messages delivered in Monday’s opinions by Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be heard — and heeded — by Chief Justice Roberts.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

Speaker Nancy Pelosi this past weekend launched a broadside invective at the United States Supreme Court, calling the Court’s justices – apparently all nine of them — “political hacks.” Additional opinions expected in the coming weeks, however, are likely to heighten the Speaker’s ire.

While the country continues in the grip of a medical pandemic made worse by a series of draconian measures instituted by state governors and local officials limiting individual liberty, Ms. Pelosi found time to vent her anger at the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the Court did not incur the Speaker’s wrath because it dared limit what has become the Left’s most sacred shibboleth – unfettered access to abortion on demand. Nor was the Speaker’s anger precipitated by a majority of justices finding cause to support the right to possess a firearm, which, unlike the right to an abortion, is expressly guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

No, Ms. Pelosi was furious that the nation’s highest court let stand a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin that did nothing more than allow a long-scheduled primary election to proceed on April 7th without extending the time for absentee ballots to be gathered in. From the perspective of Speaker Pelosi, who just weeks ago delayed for many days a House vote to provide essential financial assistance to individuals and businesses harmed by the COVID-19 pandemic, allowing an election to proceed according to the law makes the Supreme Court justices nothing more than petty “political hacks.”

Pelosi’s judicial peeve notwithstanding, one has to give her a small degree of credit for paying attention to the goings on at the High Court during a time when most of the federal government, the Congress included, has been hunkered down and operating on minimal cylinders.

In fact, there is much happening inside the cloistered halls of the nation’s highest court; with consequential decisions in the offing, affecting everything from Second Amendment rights to the ability of a president to fire the head of a federal regulatory agency.

It is well-known that the justices have decided not to decide any Second Amendment case expanding their narrow but significant 2008 and 2010 opinions that at long last decreed that the Amendment does in fact guarantee an individual right to possess a firearm. However, in a case argued before the Court last December, the justices are poised to decide the constitutionality of a New York City ban on transporting a firearm from one location to another by a lawful gun owner.

It is likely a majority of the Court’s nine justices will decide to protect an individual’s Second Amendment rights against New York City’s since-rescinded but absolute transportation ban. And even though the scope of the expected decision is likely to be extremely limited, Speaker Pelosi’s outcry at such a result will almost certainly make her recent blast at the High Court pale in comparison.

In an unrelated but also important case awaiting decision by the Court, the justices will decide whether the head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is immune from presidential control. The 2010 law establishing the CFPB uniquely protected the agency’s director from being removed by the president under virtually any circumstances.

The CFPB case was argued earlier this month, with a decision scheduled for early May. A Court majority is expected to find the unusual stature now enjoyed by this regulatory chieftain to be a violation of the separation of powers principle undergirding our three-branch federal government, according to which a president must be free to remove heads of agencies within the Executive Branch.

One can already hear the howls of anger certain to issue from the mouth of Speaker Pelosi if a majority of justices next month exhibits the gall to uphold the structure of our federal government established by our Founders two-and-one-third centuries ago, as against the “partisan hacks” who rammed through the CFPB legislation back in 2010 when – surprise – Nancy Pelosi was enjoying her first stint as Speaker.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which controls the government and the citizenry of mainland China with an iron fist, is in large measure directly responsible for the incalculable economic and personal misery that has been visited on the United States and virtually every other country over the past four months resulting from the release of the coronavirus pandemic. It is time for the Trump administration to take concrete legal, economic, and diplomatic steps to hold Beijing accountable for this catastrophe.

That the virus originated inside mainland China is beyond dispute. What is becoming increasingly clear is that the CCP deliberately and intentionally withheld vital information about the virus from the United States and other nations, so as to limit our ability to stem its reach and minimize its devastation.

The Chinese government continues its campaign of misinformation and subterfuge to this day. This vile regime must be held accountable and the United States must lead that crusade.

The result of China’s intentional deception about COVID-19 has cost tens of thousands of lives and trillions of dollars in economic loss, even as it has led to immense suffering among the healthy as well. None of this was caused by good faith mistake or negligence. It was calculated and deliberate. The remonstrations by China’s lackeys at the World Health Organization (WHO) notwithstanding, the United States must take the lead in holding China accountable, in concrete and meaningful ways.

To start, President Donald Trump should announce the economic losses caused by COVID-19 will be offset by the U.S. debt owned by China; given that debt is a little over one trillion dollars, the last stimulus package alone would wipe it out completely.

Secondly, Trump should increase what he started in 2018, instituting severe restrictions on the ease with which Chinese students and researchers have gained access to our universities, research labs, and businesses. This wealth of information gained by having access to American institutions is highly valuable to the CCP as an important component in building the country’s economy and national defense, ultimately to be deployed against our interests. Severely crimping or cutting off this pipeline would be a blow to their plans.

Trade restrictions must also continue. COVID-19 revealed to even the most China-centric pundits the severity of the threat posed to U.S. supply chains running through China. While tariffs are not an ideal weapon to deploy against an adversary, those aimed at China should at least be leveraged to begin nudging U.S. interests out of China. And if not back into the U.S., then at least into less corrupt foreign nations where similarly cheap production of goods helps to lower costs for U.S. consumers.

Government contracts could be leveraged as well, prohibiting companies with supply chain links in China from winning contracts with our own government. Japan recently announced it is paying its businesses to leave China, which is also an option for the U.S. in the form of tax breaks or other incentives for repatriation.

Not to be lost in all this, is our relationship with the Republic of China, which should be strengthened publicly. The “One China” policy pressed internationally by the communist regime and acceded to by the U.S. since the Jimmy Carter administration, is a stain on America’s foreign policy and is long overdue for reconsideration. Trump has already made symbolic gestures in this direction, and now is the perfect time to accelerate such a move. It is time to start working more with Taiwan and less with its totalitarian counterpart on the mainland.

Hitting China in its fat wallet, whether directly or indirectly, will get their attention and pay dividends in the long run for American businesses and our own national interests. Important as it is to make Beijing pay monetarily for what it has done, hitting them legally may be equally important.

Conservative lawyer Larry Klayman recently filed a multi-trillion-dollar class-action lawsuit against the communist Chinese regime for its orchestration of the COVID-19 conspiracy. The U.S. Department of Justice should not watch from the sidelines in this battle.

Chinese assets in U.S. financial institutions should not remain immune from being frozen while legal steps are developed and undertaken.

The Justice Department in the recent past was quick to indict Russian collaborators for interfering in our elections. What China has done to harm the United States and its citizenry is far worse than what a group of Russian hackers allegedly did. If indictments of top Chinese officials responsible for visiting the COVID-19 pandemic on our country and for conspiring to cover it up is not already in the works, it should be.

Daily Caller

by Bob Barr

For more than two decades, the system codified in federal law for ensuring that persons prohibited from possessing a firearm are not able to lawfully acquire one from a licensed firearms retailer has worked reasonably well. Since 1998 when the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or “NICS,” became operational, the FBI has completed hundreds of millions of background checks on prospective gun purchasers; 28.4 million last year alone.

For some reason, however, the FBI recently has taken to playing games with NICS, and by bureaucratic fiat ignoring or overriding an important provision in the law. Neither firearms purchasers nor retailers should stand for such skullduggery.

The provision at issue is that which permits the FBI to place what amounts to a “hold” on a prospective firearm purchase, in order to allow the Bureau time to determine if a particular purchaser falls within one of the several categories of persons not permitted to possess a gun. Under the law establishing NICS, with the FBI as the “go-to” agency, that temporary “hold” is strictly limited to “three business days.”

While the vast majority of inquiries submitted to the FBI each year by firearms dealers (Federal Firearms Licensees or “FFLs”) are approved or denied almost immediately (hence, the “instant” check system), occasionally there are those that raise questions, and in each such instance, the FFL is notified and the statutorily allowed “three business day” period begins to run. If the dealer does not receive a denial within that window, the dealer is permitted at its discretion to allow the purchase (or “transfer”) to proceed.

The three-business-day hold period is clearly defined as days in which “state offices are open” in the particular state where the transaction is taking place. This particular language was designed so as not to box the FBI into having to resolve the potential problem with a purchaser’s background on a Friday right before a three-day state or federal holiday. For the past 22 years this has been the common understanding. Until now, that is.

Since the announcements over the past several weeks of federal and state-level COVID-19 “state of emergency” decrees, during which many businesses and public events are closed, FFLs have been receiving notices from the FBI that certain transactions are delayed not for three business days, which is the maximum the law allows, but for 30 days or even longer.

Although the volume of requests to NICS during the current pandemic is unprecedented and places a strain on the Bureau’s staff in meeting the requirements of the law, there is no provision in federal law permitting the Bureau to extend any purchase “hold” beyond three business days.

The FBI may be interpreting the pandemic-based emergency decrees in effect in every state as constituting days in which state government offices are not “open.” If so, this is a subterfuge. State offices in all 50 states remain open, albeit under limiting guidelines set by the federal government and by individual state governors.

Businesses that receive notices from the FBI declaring planned firearms purchases are delayed for extended periods beyond the lawful maximum three business days are put in a delicate position. While such notices clearly are inconsistent with the law, if the retailer receiving one allows the sale to go forward after three business days – as the business is permitted to do lawfully – and the FBI later notifies the retailer that the buyer is in fact a prohibited person, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to foresee potential legal issues looming.

Moreover, NICS checks are valid only for 30 days, so a retailer who obeys a 30-day (or even longer) hold and receives no denial during that time, places the purchaser in the position of having to come back and start the process all over again in a potential never-ending loop.

The director of the FBI should step in and stop this bureaucratic skullduggery, and if he will not, the Attorney General should. Anti-gun state and local government officials are trying every trick in the book during this pandemic to deny law-abiding citizens the ability to exercise their rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Americans do not need bureaucrats at the FBI making it even more difficult.

Bob Barr represented Georgia’s 7th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1995 to 2003. He now serves as President of the Law Enforcement Education Foundation based in Atlanta, Georgia.

Townhall

by Bob Barr

With various states already postponing primary elections in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic, questions are surfacing about whether to postpone the November 3rd general election.  The complexities inherent in such consideration would make even the most seasoned constitutional expert’s eyes glaze over.

Though we thankfully appear to be past the peak of COVID-19 infections, there is a real possibility of another viral cycle later this year; meaning the November election could take place in circumstances similar to those we face today, with mandated “social distancing” and “lockdowns” in place. This is where things become seriously and constitutionally muddled.

Per the 20th Amendment to the Constitution, terms of the President and Vice President end at Noon on January 20th. Likewise, every House Member’s term ends on January 3rd, as does the term of every Senator who currently is up for reelection on November 3rd. While Congress is empowered to set the date of the election by law, the terms of the president, the vice president, all 435 House members, and one-third of Senators are set by the Constitution and cannot extend beyond those dates. No “state of emergency” can change this.

So, who would serve as president and vice president if the November 3rd election was postponed? “The Speaker of the House” is the obvious answer, but it is hardly that simple.

Should an election not take place before these terms expire, there would be no Speaker of the House because Nancy Pelosi would not have been reelected to represent the people of the 12th District of California. But, hold on a moment — since the House elects a Speaker and that person technically need not be a member of the House, could the Democrat-controlled House choose someone else, or would Pelosi remain as Speaker since her title as “Speaker” is not dependent on her being a sitting member of the House?

Also, what would happen in the Senate, with one-third of the seats not filled after January 3rd? There are 22 Republicans up for re-election, and 12 Democrats. Should none of them be seated, the 10-seat net GOP loss, which would include current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, would leave Democrats with a majority and an open leader seat.

This has implications for the line of succession, assuming as well that President Donald Trump’s term would end, and the presidency be vacant. The President Pro Tempore of the Senate is next in line after the Vice President and the Speaker of the House.  Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassley, currently the most senior Republican senator, now serves in that largely honorary post, but it is not clear if he would (or could) be chosen to continue after next January 3rd (his term runs to January 3, 2023). Democrat New York Sen. Chuck Schumer serves now as Minority Leader in that body and his term continues also to January 3, 2023, so he would be a key player, especially if the consequence of all this puts his Party in the majority.

What about the Electors, chosen by the states per Article I Section 1 and as modified by the 12th Amendment to the Constitution? Would they still vote for President, even if the popular vote in each state did not take place? Would each one be free to vote for whomever he or she wished, or beholden to some other bellwether of public opinion to cast Electoral College ballots?

Complicating the matter even further is that administratively, elections are a function of the states, and not subject to presidential or congressional mandates. Would some states where the virus is particularly bad cancel their election, while others continue with voting; and, does this change how many Electoral votes are needed in order to be elected president, since the 12th Amendment only requires a majority of the Electors who have been appointed? What happens if a state chooses an alternative voting method? Should those votes be counted, or dismissed? Who decides?

States of emergency now are in place in every state and territory, overlaid since March 13th with a federal “state of emergency.” These measures, considered in many respects draconian, are being supplemented by local emergency declarations by municipal officials in communities across the nation.

This situation already is eating away at the civil compact between citizens and government, and between state and federal authorities; a construct carefully woven into the fabric of our constitutional republic. Adding to this perilous condition by deferring the November general election, could very well push us toward a darkness into which our country never has descended.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

Everything New York Sen. Chuck Schumer says is political; and since President Trump took office in January 2017, everything Schumer says is political with an anti-Trump stinger. However, the Senator’s recent call for the President “to designate a senior military officer” to control the federal government’s COVID-19 response, is dead wrong.  The proposal reflects a troubling perspective that, while perhaps popular to many citizens in times of crisis, cuts against the grain of how our country is governed; that is, if in accord with the principles and philosophy underlying our founding charter.

The United States is a constitutional republic governed by individuals accountable to the people. This principle is codified in the Constitution itself, and explained further and at length in documents from The Federalist Papers to Supreme Court opinions, and in extensive presidential commentary beginning with George Washington. As noted by Richard Brookhiser in his book, “George Washington on Leadership,” it was our very first Commander in Chief who “made the template for American military leaders and their civilian superiors” (emphasis mine). America at its core is a country led by civilians according to civil law, not military individuals operating according to martial law.

The distinction is not merely technical or strictly statutory (though such distinctions are extremely important). The “template” establishing the supremacy of civilian leadership over military in our country and in our culture, reflects also the civilian mind-set over the military.

Armed forces operate on strict chain-of-command. Navy Captain Brett Crozier, former commander of the nuclear aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt, recently learned that going outside the chain of command brings serious consequences.

Principles of civilian due process and equal protection are very different in that environment. This makes perfect sense. In the military, particularly during hostilities, failure to execute orders without question can, and probably will, result in loss of life and possible defeat on the battlefield.

It is this consistency and certainty that makes the notion of placing the military in control of federal government functions in times of emergency or crisis, appealable to many people. Having a military figure at the helm, barking out orders and demanding results without question, offers a sense of security and comfort.  It is understandably easier for many people to be told what to do than for them to have to decide for themselves.

When Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans 15 years ago, for example, it was not any of the civilian officials involved who rose in stature and popularity.  It was a military personality, Army Lt. Gen. Russel Honore.

The use of the National Guard to augment and assist state governments (and occasionally the federal government) in times of true emergency – whether caused by force of nature or of disease – is appropriate and in many circumstances, essential.

The propriety of employing military resources and administration in such domestic settings, however, comes with an important caveat – civilian authorities, whether under command of a state governor or the president of the United States, must remain in control of policy decision-making and -implementation.  This may lead to some bad decisions being made, and it may appear far messier than the chain-of-command paradigm within which military operations are conducted; but it is the way things happen in a representative democracy – in a free country.

Placing our country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic under the command of a “designat[ed] senior military officer” as Schumer desires, may appear to him and to Trump’s critics as a way to fill what he claims is an “existing federal leadership void.” Such a move might even appeal to a large segment of the voting public and to many in the media.  In their perspective, it makes sense – we are “at war” with a viral enemy, and who best to lead the defense against that enemy than a “senior military officer.”

After all, so the argument goes, over the centuries America has produced some of the best military leaders the world has seen (beginning with Gen. George Washington), and our armed forces remain the very best in the world.

It is a seductive argument that Schumer makes, even if prompted by his dislike for President Trump. But it is fundamentally wrong and reflects either a deep ignorance of the principles on which our nation was founded, or a conscious decision to brush those principles aside to make a partisan political point. Trump, who categorically rejected Schumer’s letter the same day it was sent, understands what is at stake, just as did George Washington before him.

Townhall.com

by Bob Barr

For more than 150 years, gun laws in the United States were essential, as written in the Bill of Rights: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It was not until the second half of the 20th Century that gun control as we know it took hold.  By that time, of course, the United States had survived a bloody civil war, expanded territorially from the eastern seaboard to the Arctic Circle, fought in and emerged victorious in two World Wars, and was the only superpower to stand against the expansionist communist regimes in the Soviet Union and Red China.

To say that the Second Amendment was instrumental in these iconic American stories is an understatement. Guns are intimately woven into the fabric of America’s unique, rugged individualism that has seen us survive numerous hardships in our country’s short existence; all without losing our quintessential grit and spirit of freedom. At least, it seems, until now.

With the stroke of their pens, a number of far-left local mayors and state governors responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, have declared the Second Amendment “non-essential.” Based not on centuries of American history and decades of legal precedent saying otherwise, these anti-gun officials saw a window of opportunity to make irrelevant, even if temporarily, a sacred constitutional right.

Closing down firearms retailers and shooting ranges effectively prevents large numbers of citizens from exercising their constitutionally guaranteed right to possess a firearm for self-defense; it also impedes the ability of police officers in many parts of the country from accessing those gun ranges to maintain their shooting skills.

Making matters even worse, many localities may now claim the authority, in declaring a “state of emergency,” to arbitrarily confiscate firearms from citizens, such as we witnessed in post-Katrina New Orleans.

Fortunately for the Bill of Rights, Donald Trump rather than Hillary Clinton is our president during this crisis.

Last Saturday, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within the Department of Homeland Security, issued a memorandum declaring that men and women “supporting the operation of firearm or ammunition product manufacturers, retailers, importers, distributors, and shooting ranges,” are essential. Alan Gottlieb, executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, said in response to the memorandum that “every freedom-loving American owes President Trump and his administration a very big thank you for protecting our Second Amendment Rights.” Indeed.

The memorandum is extremely important for the Second Amendment in two ways. First, it is a practical defense of the Amendment. By virtue of the Constitution’s “Supremacy Clause,” the federal declaration making gun stores and other firearms related businesses “essential,” overrides moves by leftist mayors and governors to shutter these businesses.

Even before the CISA memorandum was issued, the National Rifle Association and other pro-Second Amendment organizations had begun to file lawsuits challenging anti-gun governors and municipal officials who were issuing unconstitutional edicts to close gun stores and firing ranges. The Administration’s declaration strengthens these legal challenges, especially should any public officials refuse to follow CISA’s guidelines.

The memorandum is also an important philosophical victory for the Second Amendment. The memorandum’s technical writing is not an artful or deep defense of gun rights as we would expect from Thomas Jefferson or James Madison. However, the very fact the Trump Administration would declare the ability to exercise one’s Second Amendment rights without added restrictions in an emergency to be “essential,” stands as an astounding rebuke to the contemporary, worldwide trend to deny and diminish the fundamental human right of self-defense; and to thereby render citizens increasingly dependent on their governments for protection.

If there is a silver lining in the dark cloud that is the COVID-19 pandemic, it is President Trump’s reaffirmation that the Second Amendment remains, here in America, “essential.”