Constitution Check: Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?

new.yahoo.com ^ | 04/15/14 | Lyle Denniston

[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....

[Secret Agent Man]

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.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

The words “well-regulated” meant “well-trained.”

[FlingWingFlyer]

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.

[Vendome]

Sure.

Let’s amend the 1st as well and neck, the 4th and 5th as well.

[kaehurowing]

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.

[righttackle44]

Anytime—ANYTIME—a Constitutional convention is called for the purpose of changing any part of it, ALL of it can be changed.

[CurlyDave]

Yes, take out the term “well regulated militia”

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.

[Myrddin]

The amended verbage I recommend: "The right of an individual to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

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.

[Myrddin]

My concern is that "freeman" would be overturned immediately. You are a slave unless the state proclaims you "free".

[FredZarguna]

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.

[FredZarguna]

The People is a legal term of art, still recognized by the Federal Judiciary. The People are never recognized in the Constitution as meaning anything other than individuals.

[FredZarguna]

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 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]

[CurlyDave]

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.

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.

[Pollster1]

Yes, take out the term “well regulated 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.

[Joe Boucher]

Molon Labe’, baby.
Come and take em.

[KeyLargo]

Newsmax
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.”

[Jabba the Nutt]

“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.’ ”

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.

[Mycroft Holmes]

The phrase "well regulated" in colonial times:

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

[elcid1970]

“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.”

[DoodleDawg]

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.