Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
sorry, but if and amendment was passed and ratified by the states that said the second amendment is hear by repealed, the second amendment would be gone.
Wouldn't that be infringing.... The way I read it, even an attempt to amend it is unconstitutional.
Shall not be infringed, means no amending it either. No touching it as long as the nation under the constitution exists. It is pretty clear. Shall not infringe says to me, an amendment cannot be made to alter it.
Wouldn't that be infringing.... The way I read it, even an attempt to amend it is unconstitutional.
Shall not be infringed, means no amending it either. No touching it as long as the nation under the constitution exists. It is pretty clear. Shall not infringe says to me, an amendment cannot be made to alter it.
so in your interpretation of the constitution it would be ok for me to own a nuke or a tank? How about a missile ?
if f-troop would have talked to the sheriff before going in on their illegal raid, waco texas need not ever to have happened. the raid on the branch davidians was just a blantant attempt by f-troop to use their power on a religious group, and they got their butts handed to them.
too bad the evidence was covered up by the feds after the fire, and the metal front door was never found by state investigators after the fire.
Wouldn't that be infringing.... The way I read it, even an attempt to amend it is unconstitutional.
Shall not be infringed, means no amending it either. No touching it as long as the nation under the constitution exists. It is pretty clear. Shall not infringe says to me, an amendment cannot be made to alter it.
Infringement is breaking a law, not modifying it. Since the Constitution provides means of amendment, the 2nd amendment could be modified legally, just as any other amendment can. Since there is no way of restoring to it's original wording allowed by the Constitution, if the 2nd was amended, it would require one more amendment to restore it back to how it was originally. That's why we still prohibit suffrage in one part of the Constitution while allowing it in a later part. The latter revisions always take precedence over the earlier provisions.
The 2nd amendment is the only amendment that has wording so it can never be amended.... EVER
Shall not be infringed, is very powerful.
Your premise has a few philosophical and legal problems that work to diminish and threaten rights not secure them. It is best for gun rights people to refuse to accept that our rights emanate from any words of the Constitution; it is always best for us to align our defense of the right with the foundational principles of the Constitution even if statist authoritarian liberals and progressives are confused and mystified by those principles.
To start, it is a foundational principle of the Constitution that a right's enumeration is not the source of that right. The right to arms is not granted, given, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right does not in any manner depend on the words (or sentence structure or punctuation) of the 2nd Amendment for its existence.
This means that the act of modifying or even repealing the 2nd Amendment (even following Article V procedure) would not impact or diminish the right to arms in any manner.
Neither is the fact that the federal government is forbidden to act against the right to arms a function or product of the 2nd Amendment. The federal government is powerless to act against the right to arms simply because no power was ever granted to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen. And yes, I am aware that that means that pretty much ALL federal gun control is unconstitutional . . .
The 2nd Amendment is nothing but a redundant declaration that simply reminds the federal government that it is forbidden to exercise powers it was never granted.
The Supreme Court has affirmed and enforced these principles multiple times over the Court's history (internal quotation marks and citations removed):
1876: "The right there specified is that of bearing arms for a lawful purpose.* This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
2008: "the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it shall not be infringed. As we said in . . . 1876 , [t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .â€
*that "lawful purpose" was for self defense, from the KKK, by former slaves, in 1873 Louisiana, a state which at that time had no state militia, it having been disbanded by Congress . . .
Any inspection of the 2nd Amendment trying to discern what the right "is" or worse, what government should allow the citizen to do, is anti-constitutional . . . The only part of the Constitution to inspect to learn what gun laws the federal government is allowed to enact is Article I of the Constitution. Finding no express power granted there that allows government to dictate to the private citizen regarding his personal arms, always refer to the primary rule for interpreting the US Constitution, ALL POWERS NOT CONFERRED ARE RETAINED.
sorry bentbow, but ANY amendment can be repealed if congress gets enough votes, to send such an amendment to the states, and if enough states ratify such an amendment.
But the submitting of the original articles of amendment (now known as the Bill of Rights) was a condition of many states ratifying the Constitution.
Are you sure that today's politicians are both smart enough and convincing enough to argue that . . .
"THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution."
Wouldn't that be infringing.... The way I read it, even an attempt to amend it is unconstitutional.
Shall not be infringed, means no amending it either. No touching it as long as the nation under the constitution exists. It is pretty clear. Shall not infringe says to me, an amendment cannot be made to alter it.
Technically, you are correct. Unfortunately many judges DON'T see things the same way.
Speech is the vocalized form of human communication. Yet some judges have changed the meaning.
They NOW say actions are also speech. They claim burning the flag is "an expression of speech".
A majority of judges can change ANYTHING they want.
Wouldn't that be infringing.... The way I read it, even an attempt to amend it is unconstitutional.
Shall not be infringed, means no amending it either. No touching it as long as the nation under the constitution exists. It is pretty clear. Shall not infringe says to me, an amendment cannot be made to alter it.
I agree that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are untouchable -- even if the process set out in Article v is followed precisely.
The transmittal to the states of those provisions were a condition upon which many states premised their ratification of the Constitution upon. If those provisions can be revisited then the ratification of the entire compact can be revisited.
As simple logical exercise, granting the federal government new powers to act against the personal guns of the private citizen has no chance. States have responded to federal gun control actions with what can only be described as rejection and emphatic protection of their citizen's rights . . . One can review state constitutional right to arms provisions and we see many states either rewriting their provisions or enacting new RKBA provisions if they didn't have one, in response to just the hint of expanding federal gun control (following the GCA-68 and Brady).
Only one state can be said to have enacted a gun control enabling constitutional provision. Of course that is Illinois, in 1970 . . . No doubt in response to the race riots of the late 60's.
The number of states that ratified new RKBA provisions or rewrote existing RKBA provisions in just the 80's and 90's, (11), in the wind-up and enactment of Brady, and the number that expressly state the right to arms to be an individual right and inviolate, would forestall any belief that 38 states would ratify any federal amendment granting the feds new plenary power over their citizen's right to arms.
Anyone who thinks the ratification of a "2nd Amendment" kill pill is possible, please review the State Constitutional Right to Arms Provisions and compile a list of states that you feel would vote for giving the feds this new control over their citizens.
so in your interpretation of the constitution it would be ok for me to own a nuke or a tank? How about a missile ?
Yes, you are free to have a Nuke now.
If you have one and only you know about it. is it illegal now?
It is not illegal until you get caught, today.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
