In the theater of American politics, few performances are as predictable as watching elected officials solemnly swear to “support and defend the Constitution” only to immediately begin working to circumvent it. The recent introduction of the “Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2025” provides yet another example of this constitutional amnesia in action.
The Ceremony vs. The Reality
The oath of office ranks among America’s most solemn ceremonies. With hand on Bible, our representatives pledge their fidelity to our founding document. The ink barely dries on their signature before many begin treating that same document like an inconvenient roadblock to their political agenda.
The Second Amendment states plainly that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Not “shall be moderately infringed when politically expedient” or “shall be respected only for certain types of arms that existed in the 18th century.” The language is unambiguous by design.
Yet here we are, witnessing another legislative attempt to directly contradict constitutional text while claiming constitutional fidelity. As constitutional scholar Randy Barnett notes, “The Constitution means what it says,” a concept apparently revolutionary in Washington circles.
The Bipartisan Betrayal
What’s particularly telling about constitutional violations is their thoroughly bipartisan nature. While Democrats might target the Second Amendment, Republicans find their own constitutional provisions to ignore. The Fourth Amendment falls victim to surveillance state expansions, the First to various speech restrictions, and war powers get usurped regardless of which party occupies the White House.
This isn’t about defending one side against the other – it’s about recognizing that both parties have institutionalized constitutional infidelity. They simply choose different clauses to ignore.
The Rationalization Machine
When confronted with their constitutional contradictions, politicians deploy the same tired defenses:
“Times have changed.” “We need common-sense limitations.” “The Founders couldn’t have envisioned modern circumstances.”
These arguments share a common presumption: that elected officials have the authority to update constitutional protections without actually amending the Constitution. They don’t.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote, “Our peculiar security is in the possession of a written Constitution.” That security becomes meaningless when those sworn to protect it instead treat it as an optional guideline.
Restoring Constitutional Fidelity
If the Constitution genuinely requires updating to remove Second Amendment protections, Article V provides a clear amendment process. That path wasn’t chosen because amendment requires supermajorities and state ratification – a deliberate design to prevent precisely the kind of casual constitutional revision we witness today.
What’s the solution? Perhaps we should start taking oaths seriously again. When officials violate their sworn constitutional duties, voters should respond accordingly – regardless of party.