HJR 7: Convention to Finish Destroying the
Kraig Powell, house district 54, "Republican".
Summary: HJR 7 calls for a convention of the
states, with delegates likely chosen by the corrupt federal congress.
These delegates could rewrite or abolish the U.S.
constitution and its "Bill of Rights" to include the right to keep
and bear arms. Convention decisions could be ratified by
— the delegates choose; entirely bypassing the state
legislatures if they desire.
Position: UT Gun Rights
opposes this bill. See its
bill status page.
To contact your statutators,
This bill passed (7
yeas, 1 nays, 5 absent) Greg Hughes' hand-picked
house revenue and taxation committee, passed the house floor (40
yeas, 30 nays, 5 absent), passed Wayne Niederhauser's
hand-picked senate business and labor committee (3
yeas, 2 nays, 2 absent), passed the senate by 1 vote*
yeas, 13 nays, and 1 absent).
*Note: In Utah, a
constitutional majority (15 of 29 senate statutators and 38 of
75 house statutators) is required for any bill to pass. This
means that "absent/not voting" is equivalent to a "NO" vote.
this page ("F-5" on most browsers) to
see latest version.
Last updated: 3/5/14
at 11:30 PM.
Jump Down to Topics:
1. Once Convened, Anything Goes...
Including Your Rights
2. Congress Organizes &
Controls the Convention
3. Can't States Control their
Delegates to a Convention?
4. Don't Three-Fourths of the States
Need to Approve the Results?
5. Wouldn't States Revolt if the 2nd
Amendment Were Weakened?
6. Gun Control Zealots Funding Convention
7. Appropriate Action: Contact the Two
Bullies Who Dominate Your Statutators
Once Convened, Anything Goes... Including Your Rights
Click picture to
HJR 7 calls for a constitutional convention of the states
under the auspices of adding a balanced budget amendment to
the U.S. constitution.
Sounds great, doesn't it?
Wouldn't you like to see the federal regime be forced
to balance the federal budget?
Once convened, however, constitutional conventions have power to do more than propose amendments
for state legislatures to ratify.
These bodies can scrap the current U.S. constitution and
institute an entirely new one, enact draconian gun controls,
grant the central regime more tyrannical authority, and
otherwise subvert your natural rights.
Article 5 of the U.S. constitution outlines a few details
conventions and their power to make amendments.
Article 5 does not, and cannot,
restrict delegates to merely proposing
amendments to the U.S. constitution, however.
In the convention of 1787 that created
the current U.S. constitution, delegates met pursuant to
Article 13 of the Articles of Confederation, to merely amend
that form of government.
As a recent alternative news article explains:
"Pursuant to Article XIII of The
Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress resolved
on February 21, 1787 (p 71-74) to call a convention to be held
at Philadelphia 'for
the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of
"The Continental Congress authorized
each of the then 13 States to appoint Delegates to the
convention. Twelve of the States made laws respecting the
appointment of Delegates and issuing instructions to
Delegates. Ten States instructed their Delegates to propose
alterations to the Articles of Confederation; and only two
(North Carolina and New Hampshire) gave instructions which
arguably permitted their Delegates to do more than propose
alterations to the Articles of Confederation.
"But the Delegates
ignored the federal
and State limitations and
wrote a new Constitution.
Because of this inherent
authority of Delegates,
it is impossible to stop it from happening at another
"The Delegates also instituted an
easier mode of ratification. Whereas Article XIII of the
Articles of Confederation required approval of all of the then
13 States before an amendment could be ratified;
Article VII of
new Constitution provided that only 9 States were required for
ratification of the new Constitution.
to an Article V Convention Can't be Controlled by State Laws",
by Publius Huldah, NewsWithViews.com, January 24, 2015.
In other words, once a constitutional
convention is convened, everything is up for renegotiation,
and there is no sure way to stuff the
genie back in the bottle.
Back to Topics
Organizes & Controls the Convention
selected by congress will represent the same
elitists who OWN congress.
Proponents of HJR 7 argue that states are in
complete control over the organization and agenda of a constitutional convention.
Article 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that,
"Congress… shall call a Convention for
As the federal congress is tasked to "call"
the convention, it can also oversee the selection
criteria for delegates from the various states.
In fact, a bare majority of
the federal congress could
set those criteria.
calibre of individuals are they likely to select? Will
they be wise and tried statesmen who represent the people's
interests? Or will they will cater to the same corrupt
elites they serve currently?
By controlling who attends, the U.S.
congress thereby controls the agenda.
Imagine the myriad of ways their chosen elitist
have a field day with, say, the Second Amendment?
HJR 7 proponents fail to see the irony that if a majority
of federal congressional occupants are sound enough to choose
convention delegates, they would have already
forced the federal government to adopt a balanced budget.
Back to Topics
Can't States Control
their Delegates to a Convention?
"Have we got
a quick fix deal for you conservatives!"
Proponents of HJR 7 repeatedly claim that they can merely withdraw
Utah from a constitutional convention if it begins to veer off
even proclaims, as though it were some kind of safeguard,
"The Legislature of the state of Utah
reserves the right to withdraw its application in the event
that Congress attempts to do anything other than call the
convention as dictated by Article V of the United States
However, once the federal congress
calls a convention, it can organize it and select its membership
with, or without, the Utah statutarium's (i.e. legislature's)
continued approval and/or participation. The federal
congress could even select citizens of Utah to represent Utah
against the express will of the statutarium.
And if Utah
statutators enacted any statutes prohibiting Utahans from
participating as delegates to the convention, the federal
congress could simply grant them federal immunity.
Even if states who objected to the
emergence of a radical
agenda were able to somehow control the actions
of their congressionally-approved delegates, walking out of the convention
would not necessarily stop the convention from proceeding.
The remaining delegates could simply conduct binding
business without them.
Back to Topics
Don't Three-Fourths of
the States Need to Approve the Results?
Proponents of HJR 7 also claim that any actions of a constitutional
convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the state
But this ratification only applies to amendments made to the
CURRENT U.S. constitution.
It does not necessarily apply to the action of
REPLACING the U.S. constitution.
In addition to abolishing the current U.S. constitution,
a constitutional convention can establish
different ratification requirements
— or no requirements at
all. Perhaps a majority of
the federal congress could comprise the ratification process?
Or the supreme court? Or a presidential delegation?
Or the United Nations? The imagination of the delegates
provides the only limit to how absurdly unrepresentative it
Back to Topics
Wouldn't States Revolt if the 2nd Amendment Were Weakened?
will revolt against the federal regime. Just ask the
Weber-Morgan Strike Force.
Some proponents of HJR 7 assert that
states are becoming increasingly pro-gun, and that they would
violently revolt against any constitutional convention effort
to enact further gun controls. As evidence, they cite
recent state statutes that appear to openly defy federal code
These state statutory examples of
resistance are underwhelming for the following reasons:
1) Violating state officers
almost never face substantive punishment. State
officers who cooperate with federal agents to prosecute
citizens under unjust federal statutes are protected by a
comprehensive patchwork of government immunity statutes.
injustices continue unabated. States almost
universally fail to prohibit state officers from participation
in federally-led "multi-jurisdictional
task forces". Under these task forces, state officers may
call in federal agents to do their dirty work; to include
performing unjust arrests and seizures.
3) States fail to protect
individuals prosecuted by federal agents for allegedly
violating federal gun control statutes. How
many times have you heard of states funding the costs for
individuals arrested and prosecuted by federal thugs?
4) States continue to accept
perverse federal incentives tied to gun control-related
property confiscation without due process (i.e. "asset
forfeiture") statutes provide a testament as to how
willing state governments are to subvert rights in exchange
5) States take almost no
action to arrest, remove, or otherwise stop federal agents who
defy state statute. If federal agents can roam
around molesting gun owners and violating state statute, what
good are those state statutes?
In other words, these so-called state
statutory resistances to federal code aren't being
substantively reinforced by action, and are therefore
worthless with regard to current federal tyranny. States
have become obsequious serfs to whatever federal gun control
is enacted. It is therefore more likely that this trend
would continue if a constitutional convention enacted
additional gun controls.
Back to Topics
Gun Control Zealots
Funding Convention Calls
Some gun control elitists have
outlined their agenda for a constitutional
Consider the infamous George Sorros, who has been funding constitutional convention
efforts throughout the states.
"George Soros is bankrolling and heavily supporting the Constitution 2020
staunchly believes that the Constitution is a living,
breathing, evolving document.
He believes in a new
and improved Bill of Rights. His
Open Society Institute and the Center for American Progress
sponsored the Constitution 2020 conference in April of 2005."
According to the Washington Examiner,
the Open Society Institute,
"gave $600,000 to the Tides Foundation
in 2002, 'To support the donor advised fund for the Funders'
Collaborative for Gun Violence Prevention.'"
gun control gets huge foundation boost," by Ron Arnold,
May 31, 2012.
Consider some of the other political causes the
Open Society Institute funds by
Recently renamed the
Open Society Foundation, and listing George Soros as its
founder and chairman, it favors such things as
increasing state and federal firearms bans.
To examine some of the gun control ideas
offered by the Sorros-funded Center for America's Progress,
Back to Topics
Appropriate Action: Contact
the Two Bullies Who Dominate Your Statutators
bullies steal more than your lunch money.
House Bully Greg Hughes
voted for HJR 7 and had it go through his
hand-picked house revenue and taxation committee.
Senate Bully Wayne Niederhauser is almost certainly
fast-tracking HJR 7, as he sits on the so-called
"Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force".
2013 Utah Government Corruption Report amply demonstrates,
two playground bullies abuse and dominate the house and senate and work
together to destroy your rights:
Greg Hughes and
senate president Wayne Niederhauser. Contrary to what you
learned in civics class, your house and senate statutators
merely serve their gun control agenda.
How can two people possibly exercise
such control? As one example, the house speaker and senate
president alone appoint and remove EVERY member of EVERY
committee. Hughes and Niederhauser are empowered to do this
without any review or confirmation process.
Sources: "The general duties of the
Speaker are to:... appoint the members of committees…" (House
Rules 1-3-102. Duties of the speaker) and "The general
duties of the president are to:… appoint the members of
Duties of the president)
Consider the vast implications of this
incredible power. No bill may be voted on in the house or
senate without going through a committee. As a result, bills
live or die almost entirely upon the calculated orders of
these two bullies.
Previous House Bully Becky Lockhart candidly
admitted her power to the press:
"I empower [house] committee
chairs..." [bold added]
banning enforcement of federal gun laws 'stuck in limbo',"
by Lisa Riley Roche, Deseret News, Feb. 22, 2013.
Lockhart's successor, Greg Hughes, now
empowers the chairs of each house committee because he
appoints and fires them at his will alone, as does
Niederhauser for every senate committee.
Their powers are so extreme, no
provision exists in the house or senate rules to fire these
bullies before their two-year terms are over. They lord over
each body, trade favors, and sell your rights; all while
pretending that decisions are made by the will of the majority
instead of their bullying.
The political buck stops with Hughes and Niederhauser for failing to advance positive gun owner
bills, and for every gun control bill enacted. Until more
statutators are motivated to oppose their power, your rights will continue to be
Because your house and senate statutators
merely serve their will and agenda, contacting them is often
just a courtesy call. These two bullies hold the power
over Utah's statutarium ("legislature"):
For House Bully Greg Hughes' contact
information (and the rest of the house statutators),
click here. For Senate Bully Wayne
Niederhauser's contact information
(and the rest of the senate statutators),
Back to Topics
Click here to go back
to The 2015 Bill Tracking Page: The Good, The Bad, and The