A Montana lawmaker is proposing amendments to the Constitution to nullify the effects of laws in the works to outlaw firearms.

Rep. Jerry O’Neil, a Republican from Columbia Falls, has vowed to work with the Montana state legislature to adopt amendments protecting the Second Amendment and national sovereignty.

O’Neill is concerned about gun laws – including possible confiscation of all semi-automatic firearms in the country – currently being drafted by California Democrat Sen. Dianne Feinstein. If Feinstein’s draconian assault on the Second Amendment is successful, O’Neill warns, gun manufacturers in the Flathead Valley region of Montana will be at risk.

The Congressman believes shutting down thriving firearms manufacturers will violate the Commerce Clause.

He wants to replace the word “among” with “between” in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. If adopted, the passage will read: “Congress shall have power … to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and interstate commerce between the several states, and with the Indian tribes.”

“I believe that is the way our founding fathers intended it to be,” he said. “This would put some sideboards on the interstate commerce clause so there is a limit to it.”

Moreover, O’Neill would amend Article 2, Section 2. He would insert the phrase “subject to the Constitution” so the section will read: “The president … shall have the power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, subject to this Constitution, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur.”

“I’m scared that the Small Arms Treaty that the United Nations is talking about would override the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and I am sure it would infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms,” he said.

While Infowars.com understands Mr. O’Neill’s desire to prevent attacks on the Constitution, we are skeptical of any effort to modify the document. Instead of changing the Constitution, we need to work toward making sure the document is exercised in absolutist fashion.

Reading the Second Amendment and the voluminous writings of the founders, it should be obvious that the right to own firearms was intended to prevent weapon confiscation.

On September 1, 1774, the Royal Governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, dispatched Redcoats to seize hundreds of barrels of powder from the Charlestown powder house. The provocative event became known as the “Powder Alarm.”

“By the end of the day, 20,000 militiamen had mobilized and started marching towards Boston. In Connecticut and Western Massachusetts, rumors quickly spread that the Powder Alarm had actually involved fighting in the streets of Boston. More accurate reports reached the militia companies before that militia reached Boston, and so the war did not begin in September. The message, though, was unmistakable: If the British used violence to seize arms or powder, the Americans would treat that violent seizure as an act of war, and would fight. And that is exactly what happened several months later, on April 19, 1775,” writes constitutional law professor David B. Kopel.

Unfortunately, millions of Americans today do not consider seizure of their weapons an act of treason demanding a reaction similar to that of their forefathers. Thanks to decades of unrelenting propaganda and public education, many of Americans consider firearms anathema and have no problem violating the letter and spirit on the Constitution.

Feinstein’s attack is also aimed at America’s gun culture that was forged at the founding of the nation. “I hope and trust that in the next session of Congress there will be sustained and thoughtful debate about America’s gun culture and our responsibility to prevent more loss of life,” Feinstein said in the wake of the Sandy Hook murders.