Skip to comments.Constitution Check: Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?
Posted on 04/15/2014 9:29:18 PM PDT by ForYourChildren
Constitution Check: Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?
THE STATEMENT AT ISSUE: As a result of [Supreme Court] rulings, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were well regulated, has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make ti unambiguously conform to the original intent of the draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion column posted online April 11 by The Washington Post. It is excerpted from his new book, ..the article was republished in The Post on April 13.
WE CHECKED THE CONSTITUTION, AND There is an old saying about the Constitution that, like a lot of old sayings, is at least partly an exaggeration: The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is. However, that is very close to the truth about the Second Amendment.
From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun. And then it changed, in a profound way.
Prior to 2008, there was a public conversation often, in academic writings funded by the National Rifle Association about whether the Amendment should go beyond protecting the arming of state militias, to allow Americans to arm themselves for personal use....
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun.
Yes, take out the term “well regulated militia”
Hey .. newyahhoo.com ... y’know like, the new KJV, or the neo (new) orthodox, or the new ______________ (fill in the blank)
FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS!
That wording has been bastardized for a long time. I understand, that wording was only included to placate members that did not want the Federal government to have a standing army. They believed militias should be responsible for the safety of the country. I have to believe they would have been even more alarmed at the rate of Federal law enforcement.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)
Go ahead and try mother ****ers. See what happens when you go down that road.
The Bill of Rights doesn’t “give” rights; it guarantees them.
The 2A needs to state that the right of any individual to bear whatever arms said individual sees fit is a God-given right and cannot be taken away or infringed upon in the slightest by any state, local, or federal government entity. Ever.
I recommend that we delete “A well-regulated militia...” and insert in its place “A well-armed and free citizenry...”
When I saw the Yahoo source, I knew where this would go.
Doesn’t matter. The McDonald vs Chicago decision is now law and gave individuals 2nd amendment rights. Perpich vs Department of Defense in 1990 (before 2008) indicated states have a organized militia (National Guard) which is subject to Federal callup and an unorganized militia. This unorganized militia would be covered by the 2nd Amendment too.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Before the Civil War, the SCOTUS ruled, in Dred Scott VS Stanford, that if negros were given the same rights as whites, one of those right would be the “RIGHT TO KEEP AND CARRY ARMS WHEREVER THEY WENT.”
After the Civil War, and the slaves were freed, then the SCOTUS discovered that it only meant the “militia”. Yeah, that’s what it was! Can’t have blacks running around with guns shooting up klansmen now can you?
They are technically right: the Bill of Rights does not confer rights, it guarantees them — but the assumption that they push, that it gives rights, is very, very dangerous; for if it gives the right, it can be amended to remove the right.
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
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.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
nope. intent is clear.
""Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)"
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.... Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (The Federalist, No. 46)
Both of the following quotes are from George Mason - the man who wrote the Second Amendment:
I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. Speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 14, 1778
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12, 1776
From Sam Adams:
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788; Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1788 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
Richard Henry Lee (Anti-Federalist)
A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle. Letters From the Federal Farmer to the Republican, Letter XVIII, January 25, 1788
At a time, when our lordly masters in Great Britain will be satisfied with nothing less than the deprivation of American freedom, it seems highly necessary that something should be done to avert the stroke, and maintain the liberty, which we have derived from our ancestors. But the manner of doing it, to answer the purpose effectually, is the point in question. That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion."
(You could just replace the words "Great Britain" with "Washington DC" if you feel the need to update anything.)
abortion is to the left what the 2a is to the right.
who’s destroyed more lives? libtards murdering 55+ million defenseless unborn babies, or a few thousand violent attacking criminals shot and killed in self defense by law abiding citizens uwilling to be victims.
at least with guns we didn’t have to invent a constitutional right.
at least with ours, self-defense is moral and biblical, while abortion is neither.
The words “well-regulated” meant “well-trained.”
When they pass “immigration reform”, all of the idiots and morons living in the country that have a problem with the Second Amendment can just get the hell out! If you have a problem with the Bill of Rights, all you morons have to do is immigrate! Nobody is forcing you to stay here. Havana is nice. Pyongyang can also be a pleasant place to migrate to if you have the right haircut.
Let’s amend the 1st as well and neck, the 4th and 5th as well.
The U.S. Supreme Court also ruled the United States is a Christian country. Look at how that has been changed in the past few decades.
Anytime—ANYTIME—a Constitutional convention is called for the purpose of changing any part of it, ALL of it can be changed.
We do not want to do that. Even though it took a long time, the individual right has been established and is not going be easily lost this time.
Some day, mark my words, the militia clause in the 2A is going to cut down all of the assault rifle bans, magazine capacity limits, etc. We my even get select fire.
Why? Simply because at the time of the signing of the Constitution, the militia was expected to muster out with the personal weapons of its members and with these weapons stand against invading armies.
That is still the presumed function of the militia, and to arm them with anything less than current military weapons is treasonous. To expect them to defend out country with effete magazines and hunting rifles is wrong.
Plus my deer/elk/pig/bear/cougar rifle is not suited to repelling invasions. Every state I know of requires expanding bullets for shooting game, which is what I use and inventory. But, anyone captured by an enemy will be summarily executed if he has expanding bullets in his possession. They are clearly forbidden by the Geneva Convention.
That approach casts an individual right, not a "people" that might be misconstrued as a collective group of individuals. No mention of militia. No mention of "regulation" to tempt the politician to legislated restrictions. No requirement to be a "citizen" that might act as a wedge to separate individuals into citizens and non-citizens. Eliminating the reference to militia also removes the opportunity to disenfranchise an individual by narrowly defining who may be a member of the militia.
Historically, the distinction of freemen would have disappeared with the Thirteenth Amendment, leaving the Second Amendment even stronger than before. Note that it does not just recognize the right to keep and bear arms, but to use them as well.
That did not deter the Federal Judiciary from making a large class of different weapons illegal under the specious claim that they were not "military" in nature in the Miller decision. Preposterously, the Court claimed in Miller that a sawed-off shotgun had no military use, and therefore could not be a weapon employed by a militia. Never mind that a standing army and a militia are two different things, nor that a sawed-off shotgun was, even at the time of Miller of general use in the US ARMY. [In fact, for my father--a BAR gunner in WWII--a sawed-off double barrel eight gauge was his side-arm of choice, which he much preferred to the 45-caliber pistol]
As you know, Miller was a poor precedent, because Miller himself (a small-time gangster) had been killed by the time the case reached the Supremes. No one was particularly interested in standing up for Miller's rights, and no one foresaw the damage this decision has done and continues to do every day.
However, the Left's preoccupation with "Militia" in the 2A can be worked to their great disadvantage, by pursuing the line of reasoning I gave.
We have lost on the short-barreled shotgun, and I doubt we will get it back in the near future. But it seems to me that the AWB, magazine limits, and select-fire rifles may be back on the table if we get the militia emphasized. Plus there are a large number of what the BATF wants to call "destructive devices" that are currently in use by our armed forces, which should be available to a militia.
Agreed. The Militia Clause does not grammatically change the meaning of the sentence. It is an explanatory clause, providing an explanation of why the RKBA is essential, but it does not in any way alter the relationship between the subject (RKBA) and the predicate (shall not be infringed). We're better off without that clause and with the rest of the Amendment intact and legally protecting our God-given right.
Molon Labe’, baby.
Come and take em.
Bloomberg Organizes New Gun-Control Group, Will Spend $50 Million
Wednesday, April 16, 2014 06:16 AM
By: Elliot Jager
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is willing to spend $50 million this year to foster a grassroots movement to take on the gun lobby, The New York Times reported.
Everytown for Gun Safety, a new umbrella group, will amalgamate Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America. The idea is to apply some of the same single-minded, single-issue zeal used by the National Rifle Association to make the pro-gun control case.
Bloomberg said gun opponents need to be willing to target Democrats who are soft on gun control.
The Bloomberg-funded group, modeled partly after Mothers Against Drunk Driving, wants to turn women into a political force against guns.
“Right now, women, when they go to the polls, they vote on abortion, they vote on jobs, they vote on healthcare,” Shannon Watts, founder of Moms Demand Action, told the Times. “We want one of those things to be gun violence prevention.”
This lunatic was a Supreme Court Justice. Every other time the "right of the people" is mentioned in the Bill Rights, it applies to the people, except here. How can that be? Moron.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Fight the Free Sh☭t Nation
“Anytime a Constitutional convention is called for the purpose of changing any part of it, ALL of it can be changed.”
That sounds scary until you read Article V of the Constitution. A Constitutional convention (known elsewhere as a constituent assembly) can only be convened with the approval of two-thirds of the state legislatures, which is 34 right now. Any amendment(s) passed either by such convention or through the normal path in Congress (2/3rds majority) still require ratification by three-fourths of the state legislatures; that’s 38.
Twenty-seven of thirty-three amendments passed by Congress have actually been ratified while over 11,000 amendment measures introduced in Congress died before seeing the light of day. Google `equal rights amendment’ for an example of `close, but no cigar’.
In other words, the Founders saw to it that amending the Constitution would be an extremely cumbersome & difficult process. It should be noted that according to Article V the President has no role in the amendment process.
So somebody needs to tell ol’ J.P. Stevens to put on his hiking shoes & start lobbying the halls of Congress the old fashioned way and get a measure passed by 2/3rds in both House & Senate to repeal the Second Amendment; then borrow Nannie Bloomberg’s private jet to fly around all fifty states & pressure the state houses to ratify. Otherwise, he’s just blowing smoke like those other `experts’ who insist that the 2nd Amendment only permits ownership of muzzleloading flintlocks because that’s all the Founders had.
Or...as our friends across the pond would put it,
“Not bloody likely, mate.”
Crank up an Article V convention and I guarantee there were be a lot of states who think it does need to be modified if not repealed.
Inching ever closer--millimeter by millimeter!-- toward full-scale civil war, with massive bloodshed, famine, displacement, and misery for all Americans.
The freedom-hating Left does not recognize McDonald v. Chicago. Hence the new gun ban laws in NY, CT, MD, CO.
Yes, and well-provisioned, and smoothly-operating. That sense is still with us in a few usages of the word, mainly relating to clocks and flow control devices.
Not true! An Article V convention is for the purpose of introducing Amendments, not a wholesale replacement. But, yes, there could be some nasty Amendments introduced, then be ratified the same way Obama was elected, with wholesale fraud.