We should consider a new amendment to clarify the 2A - Page 2

We should consider a new amendment to clarify the 2A

This is a discussion on We should consider a new amendment to clarify the 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by mcp1810 SCOTUS is already doing the job for us. Heller and McDonald are actually a lot more pro us than they first ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 54
Like Tree30Likes

Thread: We should consider a new amendment to clarify the 2A

  1. #16
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    SCOTUS is already doing the job for us.
    Heller and McDonald are actually a lot more pro us than they first appear. When SCOTUS hears a case they are dealing with one specific question. In Heller the question was whether 2A guaranteed us the right to possess a handgun in our homes. Heller had nothing to do with carry in public places. Yet if you read the majority opinion when they spoke of the reasonable restrictions that can be placed on or right they specifically said a permit could be required for concealed carry. They said nothing of a permit for open carry.
    That will probably be the next aspect of 2A that gets clarified.
    And you do not see that as Legitimizing the various laws infringing on our right to keep and BARE arms?

    If you really think about that decision long and hard, (and I will agree that) they stated emphatically that we have a right to KEEP arms but then basically said that the 2A could be subverted by the States and other Federal Laws to define it as meaning "In our Homes", that to BARE arms or carry them either openly or concealed we have to GET permission from our Local Governments.

    Do you really read it differently? If so, please explain.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.


  2. #17
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    11,797
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    And you do not see that as Legitimizing the various laws infringing on our right to keep and BARE arms?

    If you really think about that decision long and hard, (and I will agree that) they stated emphatically that we have a right to KEEP arms but then basically said that the 2A could be subverted by the States and other Federal Laws to define it as meaning "In our Homes", that to BARE arms or carry them either openly or concealed we have to GET permission from our Local Governments.

    Do you really read it differently? If so, please explain.
    If you are going to advocate a point of view on which people have strong opinions publicly, please learn to spell. Bare arms are what you have when you appear in public wearing a tank top. The Second Amendment addresses the right to bear arms.
    SIGguy229 likes this.
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  3. #18
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    What makes anybody believe that the Second Amendment would not be abolished completely if presented for consensus?
    Presented to whom? I could take a poll the way certain groups have done in the past and stand outside of certain establishments with the foreknowledge that by asking those going in or coming out, one specific question or asking that they complete a survey, that I would get the answer I am looking for to support my contention in the poll or survey I am taking.

    How would it be written? Can you devise a simple question for a poll that would not be biased in some way? Or write a survey so that the results will actually be Fair, Honest and Open without the need for interpretation?

    Here's an Example.. Going to the Headquarters of the DNC, standing outside and asking "Do you feel that every American regardless of being Law-Abiding or not, should have the ability to own a gun?" Do you think I would get any YES Responses?

    That is why the majority of Poll results and statistics are so skewed by the intent of the person (or by the general ideologies of the group) putting them together.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  4. #19
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    11,797
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Presented to whom? I could take a poll the way certain groups have done in the past and stand outside of certain establishments with the foreknowledge that by asking those going in or coming out, one specific question or asking that they complete a survey, that I would get the answer I am looking for to support my contention in the poll or survey I am taking.

    How would it be written? Can you devise a simple question for a poll that would not be biased in some way? Or write a survey so that the results will actually be Fair, Honest and Open without the need for interpretation?

    Here's an Example.. Going to the Headquarters of the DNC, standing outside and asking "Do you feel that every American regardless of being Law-Abiding or not, should have the ability to own a gun?" Do you think I would get any YES Responses?

    That is why the majority of Poll results and statistics are so skewed by the intent of the person (or by the general ideologies of the group) putting them together.
    Do you understand the difference between taking a poll, compiling statistics, and amending the Constitution of the United States?
    "If I had my choice I would kill every reporter in the world, but I am sure we would be getting reports from Hell before breakfast."
    William T. Sherman

  5. #20
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    No we shouldn't. If a con con ever happens we may not like the results.
    oakchas likes this.

  6. #21
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,099
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    And you do not see that as Legitimizing the various laws infringing on our right to keep and BARE arms?

    If you really think about that decision long and hard, (and I will agree that) they stated emphatically that we have a right to KEEP arms but then basically said that the 2A could be subverted by the States and other Federal Laws to define it as meaning "In our Homes", that to BARE arms or carry them either openly or concealed we have to GET permission from our Local Governments.

    Do you really read it differently? If so, please explain.
    From the majority opinion on Heller:
    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.
    emphasis added
    And
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
    emphasis added
    As I read it the court believes we (non prohibited persons) have the right to carry and the only legitimate regulation, other than sensitive locations, is on concealed carry.

    They way the system works is that laws are presumed to be constitutional until they are challenged. What has to happen now basically is that someone that is not a prohibited person has to get themselves arrested for open carry and go through the process to get the law under which they are charged ruled unconstitutional. Once that gets to SCOTUS and they issue their opinion giving deference to Heller all state prohibitions and requirements for open carry go out the window.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  7. #22
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    A constitutional convention in this day and age could be disastrous for this country. Leave it be.

    Here is a good read for all of you however:

    Understanding The Slave Mentality

    The Obsession With The Law: The slave mentality, though illogical and psychotic, still requires a certain foundation to hold it together. The laws of governments tend to suffice. These laws may go completely against the force of inherent conscience, but because the slave has already abandoned listening to his inner voice of reason, this does not bother him much. If you have ever wondered why modern tyrannies always feel the need to put their horrific enforcements in writing first, THIS is why. Oligarchs understand that the law provides the slave with a means to rationalize his participation in the crimes of the state. After all, if some gut-bloated bloodthirsty elitists in government etch their mad inbred ramblings into law, then we have no choice but to follow them, right?

  8. #23
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Do you understand the futility of fighting individual laws being passed by 51 differing sources that could all be stopped by action that the people themselves can push for within their own states.
    The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  9. #24
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    From the majority opinion on Heller: "c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." emphasis added
    I will reread and then will reply to this again, as I do not recall that being the ultimate outcome, as the outcome still does not overturn the laws in Illinois which prevents Law Abiding Citizens from being able to carry their firearms from their home even into their garage. Which if your reading is correct, then the residents of the State of Illinois would be rejoicing right now and they are not.

    The result of the Heller opinion (which I am going to go look for the specific phrase used) was that they could keep firearms at home for the protection of their homes, but the State could regulate their ability to carry. Which is not what you were just emphasizing.

    Correcting myself here.. The most recent McDonald v Chicago case.. Heller was referred to throughout the case.
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; April 8th, 2012 at 07:39 PM. Reason: Adding correction and link
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  10. #25
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    I watched lethal weapon and jet li was an illegal who still carried regardless of the laws or constitution so I say it is good as it is.

  11. #26
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    From the majority opinion on Heller: "c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation." emphasis added
    Relooking at Heller v DC states:
    Held:
    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    . emphasis added as the BLUF method of writing is generally used by the SCOTUS (BLUF = Bottom Line Up Front)

    The SCOTUS goes to extensive lengths to avoid answering more than one question in each rulling. The question being presented in that case was if the District of Collumbia could outright ban handguns.
    DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER
    CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
    No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
    District of Columbia law bans handgun possession by making it a crime to carry an unregistered firearm and prohibiting the registration of handguns; provides separately that no person may carry an unlicensed handgun, but authorizes the police chief to issue 1-year licenses; and requires residents to keep lawfully owned firearms unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock or similar device.
    Respondent Heller, a D. C. special policeman, applied to register a handgun he wished to keep at home, but the District refused. He filed this suit seeking, on Second Amendment grounds, to enjointhe city from enforcing the bar on handgun registration, the licensing requirement insofar as it prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm inthe home, and the trigger-lock requirement insofar as it prohibits theuse of functional firearms in the home. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
    Link provided for your own reading.

    Pay particular attention to Paragraph 3 on page 2.
    Begining on Page 10 b. “Keep and bear Arms.” Start with:
    We move now from the holder of the right—“the people”—to the substance of theright: “to keep and bear Arms.”
    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret
    their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today.
    then go to the bottom of Page 11 where we find
    We turn to the phrases “keep arms” and “bear arms.”Johnson defined “keep” as, most relevantly, “[t]o retain;not to lose,” and “[t]o have in custody.” Johnson 1095. Webster defined it as “[t]o hold; to retain in one’s power or possession.” No party has apprised us of an idiomatic meaning of “keep Arms.” Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.”
    next let us move to Page 14
    From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that“bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer tothe carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant tothe Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “beararms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.”
    Now if we move down to Page 22 we will find where you got your quote, please read more of the whole statement:
    c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all ofthese textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment.We look to this because it has always been widely understood that 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 United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution.
    Some read this as meaning (and some have) that you have a choice of keeping or bearing arms under the 2A, but not both.

    I disagree. I read our 2A as meaning that we have both balled into one. It is however this disparity in understanding by many within our Great Constitutional Republic, that evokes me to suggest that clarification By the People themselves is the Just course of events. As where is it that our Government gets it Authority? WE THE PEOPLE

    Should we look to the McDonald v Chicago opinion? All the SCOTUS did here was to uphold that firearms could be kept in the home. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  12. #27
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,099
    Heller did not apply to the states. Washington D.C. Being a federal enclave has no state laws.
    The McDonald case is the one that forces the states to also obey Heller.
    But again we get back to what the legal question in Heller was. Heller was not about carry. Heller was about guns in the home.
    Until there is a case with the only legal question being if a law prohibiting open carry of a handgun outside ones home or business is constitutional, laws prohibiting it are presumed to be constitutional.
    As soon as the first state law is struck down, they all go unless the state can show somehow that theirs is substantially different from what was struck down.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  13. #28
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    If you are going to advocate a point of view on which people have strong opinions publicly, please learn to spell. Bare arms are what you have when you appear in public wearing a tank top. The Second Amendment addresses the right to bear arms.
    You are either avoiding the issue or are refusing to perform your own research. The SCOTUS opinion contrary to the NRA claims of it being a WIN was actually more of a harm in that it set up the potential for more states to infringe on our right to carry outside the home.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  14. #29
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Heller did not apply to the states. Washington D.C. Being a federal enclave has no state laws.
    The McDonald case is the one that forces the states to also obey Heller.
    But again we get back to what the legal question in Heller was. Heller was not about carry. Heller was about guns in the home.
    Until there is a case with the only legal question being if a law prohibiting open carry of a handgun outside ones home or business is constitutional, laws prohibiting it are presumed to be constitutional.
    As soon as the first state law is struck down, they all go unless the state can show somehow that theirs is substantially different from what was struck down.
    I might disagree with you on that, as it does not change the fact that the SCOTUS has in effect set a precedence that can be cited which can be harmful to challenges of laws that are perceived as being anti-constitutional that are being presented for constitutionality clarification.
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

  15. #30
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    A constitutional convention in this day and age could be disastrous for this country. Leave it be.

    Here is a good read for all of you however:

    Understanding The Slave Mentality
    Are you implying that we are all, already slaves to our Government? If not, where do you see what you have linked to as being pertinent to this discussion?
    Lets Unite and REMIND our Government that WE are the source of their authority and that WE demand our Rights be returned, Unabridged, Non-infringed, without denial or disparagement.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

a new amendment we should have

,

how mcdonalds changed the second amendment

,

s2213 will become an amendment to a larger bill

,

woollard v. sheridan

Click on a term to search for related topics.