The United States has the best legal system in the world. That does not make it perfect nor infallible. But is it possible to concoct a plan geared toward a lopsided creation of legal documents in order to manipulate future court decisions on major issues such as gun rights?

In my piece yesterday on Barack Obama’s history of non support of hunting and fishing opportunities and his blatant activism to rid his world of guns, I provided you a link to an article written by David T. Hardy of Pajamas Media. Hopefully you read that article.

Hardy’s focus was on the role Barack Obama played while a director of the Joyce Foundation, a non profit that spent millions of dollars opposing gun rights. A significant part of that article gave specifics on one program that was designed and implemented by the Joyce Foundation, while Obama was a director, that set out to create law articles that deliberately supported only a state’s right to keep and bear arms, opposing that of individuals, in order to influence future court decisions.

We legal illiterates might wonder how that could be done. First, Hardy explains this way:

When judges cannot rely upon past decisions, they sometimes turn to law review articles. Law reviews are impartial, and famed for meticulous cite-checking. They are also produced on a shoestring. Authors of articles receive no compensation; editors are law students who work for a tiny stipend.

My daughter was Editor and Chief of the Law Review at the college she attended. Editors, students and lawyers are encouraged, if not required, to write law articles and have their work published. These published law articles are often referenced in many ways, from use in educational settings and referenced in cases being argued.

According to Hardy, in 1999 the board of Joyce Foundation agreed to grant Chicago-Kent Law Review $84,000.00. The Review then published an issue that contained only articles opposing the individual right to keep and bear arms.

Something else that transpired during this grant period that is deemed unusual is the Chicago-Kent Law Review went outside the school and brought in a former director of Handgun Control, Inc., now the Brady Campaign, to be its editor.

The new editor actively sought only Law Review articles supporting the state’s right and opposing individual rights. He even paid some of these authors $5,000.00.

The intent here was obvious it seems. If the Joyce Foundation wanted to influence the courts and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, one way was to artificially stuff the ballot box so to speak and create an overwhelming, one-sided surplus of law articles that only opposed the individual right interpretation.

According to Hardy, this effort saw some success.

The plan worked smoothly. One court, in the course of ruling that there was no individual right to arms, cited the Chicago-Kent articles eight times.

Fortunately an appeals court saw thing differently and reversed that decision.

With Barack Obama still a director of the Joyce Foundation, they poured $400,000.00 into a new think tank at the Ohio State University. It was called the Second Amendment Research Center and was headed up by Saul Cornell, someone known to be an anti-individual gun rights person. Hardy tells us that the Second Amendment Research Center made it clear what’s its agenda was – to influence the courts and reverse previous rulings for individual rights to keep and bear arms.

The SARC continued filling up law reviews with only documents that supported the state’s right to form militia’s and denying individual rights. Once again, Hardy tells us that in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, even though the ruling went in favor of the individual right in a 5-4 decision, the dissenters of the case were influenced by this effort of the Joyce Foundation of which Barack Obama served as a director.

I find it not only disturbing but scary to think that anyone, whether opposing gun rights or any other right or established law, would work so dishonestly to manipulate our great legal system all for the purpose of promoting their personal ideals and agendas.

As I said previously, its easy for a politician to say anything they want to say and chances are they will get away with it if it is not true. Barack Obama has repeatedly said he supports an individual’s right interpretation of the Second Amendment and yet for 8 years as a director of the Joyce Foundation he supported the efforts to undermine and deceive our legal system in order to promote his agenda of removing guns from the hands of Americans.

Tom Remington