Mark Meckler’s “COS” Board Member has drafted a new Constitution which imposes gun control

By: Publius Huldah (Joanna Martin, J.D.)

Our Framers understood that a free State cannot exist without an armed and trained populace (the Militia).  Accordingly, they wrote a Constitution which prohibits the federal and State governments from infringing the natural right of the People to keep and bear arms.

Under our Constitution, the federal government has no authority to make any laws whatsoever over the Country at Large restricting the rights of the People to keep and bear arms.  Gun control is not an enumerated power.  Furthermore, the Second Amendment expressly forbids the federal government from infringing the right of the People (the Militia) to keep and bear arms.

The States are also prohibited from infringing the right of the People to keep and bear arms by Article I, Sec. 8, clauses 15 & 16, US Constitution.  Those two clauses provide for the Militia of the Several States, and implicitly prohibit the States from making any laws which would interfere with the arming and training of the Militiamen in their States. 1

Applications for Congress to call a convention under Article V, US Constitution

Various groups, such as Mark Meckler’s Convention of “States” (COS) organizations, have been lobbying State Legislators to pass applications asking Congress to call an Article V Convention.

Whether or not State Legislatures should ask Congress to call an Article V Convention is one of the most important – and contentious – issues of our time. The Delegates to such a convention, as Sovereign Representatives of the People, have the power to throw off the Constitution we have and propose a new Constitution, with a new and easier mode of ratification, which would create a new government. 2

The Pennsylvania Senators Roundtable Discussion

On November 8, 2021, several Pennsylvania Senators conducted a roundtable discussion about whether they should pass Mark Meckler’s “COS” application (SR 152) for Congress to call an Article V convention.  In addition to Mark Meckler and his allies, two large gun rights organizations, Gun Owners of America and Firearms Owners Against Crime 3 were present at the roundtable.

Much of what Meckler said at the roundtable is not true.  But this paper focuses on his comments ridiculing his opponents’ concerns that, if there is an Article V convention, we could lose our existing Right to keep and bear arms.

Meckler showed up at the roundtable dressed in gun garb; and, after dropping names to show his connections with gun rights organizations, proceeded throughout the discussion to preen his commitment to “the Second Amendment”.  He ridiculed the warnings that if there is an Article V Convention, Delegates would have the power to impose a new Constitution which, among other horrors, strips us of our Right to keep and bear arms without infringement.

Meckler said that Chuck Cooper, a litigator for the NRA, is on COS’s Legal Advisory Board and has written an open letter saying, “…it’s a ridiculous argument that there could be a runaway convention and we could lose our Second Amendment.” [13:31 – 13:57]

A bit later on, Meckler said:

“…Professor Robbie George at Princeton who is considered the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America is on our Legal Advisory Board. … [43:02 – 43:25]

So who is Professor Robbie George?   And who says he is the foremost conservative constitutional scholar in America?

Robbie George (Robert P. George) was on the National Constitution Center’s Constitution Drafting Project. The National Constitution Center is a quasi-official branch of the federal government.

Robbie George and three others have drafted a new Constitution which severely restricts the Right of the People to keep and bear arms!  His new Constitution says at Article I, Sec. 12, clause 7:

“Neither the States nor the United State [sic] shall make or enforce any law infringing the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes, provided that States, and the United States in places subject to its general regulatory authority, may enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.” 

So Robbie George’s new Constitution:

  • authorizes the state and federal governments to ban the possession of all arms unless they are “ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes”. Who will decide what arms are “ordinarily” used for self-defense or recreation?  The governments will decide.
  • authorizes the state governments and the federal government (in those places subject to its “general regulatory authority”), to enact and enforce “reasonable regulations” on the bearing of those arms they permit us to have.  What’s a “reasonable” regulation?  The governments will decide; and,
  • authorizes the state and federal governments to strip us of our right to keep even those arms “ordinarily used for self-defense” if someone in the government (presumably a judge) decides you are a danger to yourself or others.

We live in a time when Christians who read the Bible; people who read the Constitution; and moms who speak out at School Board meetings against pornography in the schools or the teaching of critical race theory, are labeled “domestic terrorists”.  Should “domestic terrorists” be allowed to keep and bear arms?  Of course not- they are dangerous!

At the roundtable, John Velleco of Gun Owners of America said:

“The questions that we’re dealing with on this is how will this [Meckler’s “COS” application SR 152] impact the Second Amendment?  Because that’s, as an organization, that’s all we care about. … So we need to determine if this is something that seriously could impact in a negative way the Second Amendment, then we are compelled to engage 100%. … our bigger issues in Pennsylvania are passing constitutional carry.”  [1:07:05 – 1:07:51]

Yet even though Meckler’s Board Member Robbie George had already participated in the drafting of a new Constitution which imposes gun control; and thereby would rescind the Second Amendment, Meckler responded:

“And I will tell you there are 5 Million people in this country … that are signed up for convention of states. Right here, there are 90,000 in this state. 90,000!

The question was asked, will this help pass constitutional carry? The answer is hell yes, it will! Because right now, our activists are very angry with gun rights organizations in this state. And they’ll not support anything that these gun organizations are doing, because they’re now sworn enemies on Article V.  … But I will say, on Kim Stolfer’s organization, they should be working with these organizations.  Every one of those 90,000 should be signed up with these organizations and members of these organizations fighting for everything they [the gun organizations] want.”  [1:21:21 – 1:22:05]

So Meckler, who postures as a “Second Amendment guy” [13:31-13:57], threatened that unless Kim Stolfer supports Meckler’s SR 152 application for a convention, Mecker’s alleged 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania 4  will not support anything Kim Stolfer’s gun rights organization does!

Look behind the Curtain

This push for an Article V Convention is the most vicious bait and switch ever perpetrated on the American People.  It’s all about getting a new Constitution under the pretext of getting amendments. 5 If Congress calls an Article V convention, Robbie George’s proposed Constitution, or another just as tyrannical, can be proposed. 6  And since any new Constitution will have its own new mode of ratification (such as a national referendum), it’s sure to be approved.

The solution to our political and economic problems is to read and enforce the Constitution we already have.  States and local governments and individual Citizens can take a giant step forward by not taking federal funds to participate in unconstitutional federal programs.

And rescind your States’ existing applications for an Article V convention!  It doesn’t matter what the ostensible purpose of a convention is, as set forth in a State’s applications.  Once the Convention assembles, the Delegates can do whatever they want including approving the Constitution Robbie George participated in drafting, or another Constitution which will also legalize the tyranny which is taking over our Country.

We are to fight tyranny by resisting it; not by legalizing it.


1 With the Militia Act of 1792, Congress required all able-bodied male Citizens in the Country (with a few exceptions) between the ages of 18 and under 45 to buy a rifle, bayonet, ammo & ammo pouch, and report to their local Militia Unit for training.  States may not lawfully do anything to interfere with this constitutional grant of power to Congress.

2 This is shown in these flyers:

3 John Velleco and Val Finnell appeared for GAO; Kim Stolfer of Pennsylvania appeared for Firearms Owners Against Crime.

4 It should be enlightening to ask Meckler to provide documentation of his claim to have 90,000 supporters in Pennsylvania.  Legislators in other states have looked behind the curtain and found “COS” claims of support to be false:  See Phony Petitions and Polls.

5 James Madison expressly warned of this stratagem:  See this flyer at footnote 2.

6 Information on additional proposed Constitutions is in the flyer linked just above.

Altogether, the National Constitution Center has three proposed new Constitutions.  All of them transfer massive new powers to the new fed gov’t.

The Constitution for the Newstates of America was produced some 60 years ago. Under this Constitution, the States are dissolved and replaced by regional governments answerable to the new national government.  Article I, Part B., Sec. 8 provides that the People are to be disarmed.  Article XII, Sec. 1, provides for ratification by a national referendum – so whoever controls the voting machines will determine the outcome.

2 thoughts on “Mark Meckler’s “COS” Board Member has drafted a new Constitution which imposes gun control

  1. Total lies, coming from the hard left. Not only did this NOT happen, the purported results are impossible.
    There are so many ways this is wrong, it is hard to list them all. Joanna Scutari (AKA Publius Huldah), does not understand history or the Constitution. And doesn’t understand Article V, or intentionally distorts it.

    Yeah, there are a few on the hard left that were seduced by the hard left about abortion. They, along with the left, have opposed any move to outlaw abortion for decades.
    Prominent Iowa Republicans align themselves with liberals against the constitution and a right to life amendment

    JAMES MADISON AND EVERY DELEGATE to the 1787 convention fully approved Article V WITH the state led convention method. They would have probably NOT gotten the proposed Constitution submitted and ratified without it.
    Amendments should be provided to correct defects, thus preventing “chance and VIOLENCE” >

    The Liberal Establishment’s Disinformation Campaign Against Article-V

    Joanna also supports nullification, which Madison excoriated as the means of destroying the Union and the Constitution, exactly what she accuses COS of…she is advocating.
    James Madison to Edward Coles, 29 August 1834
    On the other hand what more dangerous than nullification, or more evident than the progress it continues to make, either in its original shape, or in the disguises it assumes. Nullification has the effect of putting powder under the Constitution and Union, and a match in the hand of every party to blow them up at pleasure: And for its progress, hearken to the tone in which it is now preached; cast your eye on its increasing minorities in most of the Southern States without a decrease in any one of them. Look at Virginia herself and read in the Gazettes, and in the proceedings of popular meetings, the figure which the anarchical principle now makes, in contrast with the scouting reception given to it but a short time ago.

    It is not probable that this offspring of the discontents of South Carolina, will ever approach success, in a majority of the States. But a susceptibility of the contagion in the Southern States is visible; and the danger not to be concealed, that the sympathies arising from known causes, and the inculcated impression of a permanent incompatibility of interests between the South and the North, may put it in the power of popular leaders aspiring to the highest stations, (and despairing of success on the Federal theatre) to unite the South, on some critical occasion, in a course that will end in creating a new theatre, of great tho’ inferior extent. In pursuing this course, the first and most obvious step is nullification; the next secession; and the last a farewell separation. How near was this course being lately exemplified? And the danger of its recurrence in the same or some other quarter may be increased by an increase of restless aspirants, and by the increasing impracticability of retaining in the Union a large and cemented section against its will. It may indeed happen that a return of danger from abroad, or a revived apprehension of danger at home, may aid in binding the States in one political system; or that the geographical and commercial ligatures, may have that effect; or that the present discord of interests between the North and the South, may give way to a less diversity in the applications of labor, or to the mutual advantage of a safe and constant interchange of the different products of labor in different sections. All this may happen, and with the exception of foreign hostility, hoped for. But in the mean time, local prejudices and ambitious leaders may be but too successful in finding or creating occasions for the nullifying experiment of breaking a more beautiful vase,* than the British Empire ever was, into parts which a miracle only could reunite.

    Has Joanna even practiced, meaning she has the license to do so, since the time period when she did her husband’s divorce from his first wife? I am betting he was ditched by her because he was a Federal felon (fact). That was back in the ’80s.
    Where is Joanna’s peer reviewed set of papers? Nowhere. Licensed lawyers are everywhere, and a dime a dozen. She isn’t one AFAIK. Why is anyone listening?
    Follow the Framers. THEY fully approved Article V, and called for the first Convention of States in 1789. They knew it was the only means powerful enough to restrain Congress and the Feds peacefully.

    With articles like this, all noisyroom amounts to, is noise. You can do better.

  2. You realize that your footnote 1 is referring to the first of a string of Militia Acts to organize at the State level to provide tactical military capability for “whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe.” These Militia Acts all had expiration dates and so the old ones are no longer in effect. Ultimately, all these were superseded by the Militia Act of 1903, which established the United States National Guard as the chief body of organized military reserves in the United States.

    In the Second Amendment, the framers actually used as the opening phrase, as you know, “A well regulated Militia….” clause. Thus, after the Constitution was ratified, our government started using Militia Acts to formalize and, if you will, regulate the use of its citizenry to provide armaments. As time went on, it became problematic to have a well regulated militia if we depended on citizens to show up bringing all manner of weaponry. This haphazard approach, no standards, or supply planning was not conducive to military readiness. That’s why in our world today, we have a well regulated militia in the form or our state National Guards. We also have Sherriff departments as well. We no longer see a cohort of gun toting zealots as the model envisioned by our Second Amendment.

    In that sense, the National Guard does not want its force to bring in their own personal supply. That would be poorly regulated and lead to gaps in preparedness. In the 1700’s we had no choice. Today we do. So the unfettered propagation of “guns for everyone” is not useful to the purpose of the Second Amendment.

    So the Second Amendment needs to be re designed to make it relevant. But I think in addition to preserving the right to own guns would also come the responsibilities about firearm ownership and safety. Some have argued guns should be regulated similar to automobiles. Maybe it is time to put that in a Constitutional Convention.

Comments are closed.

Donate to

Support American Values...