We should consider a new amendment to clarify the 2A - Page 3

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; Jet li did it in lethal weapon. Therefore it is pertinent....

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 54
Like Tree30Likes

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

  1. #31
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Jet li did it in lethal weapon. Therefore it is pertinent.


  2. #32
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    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.
    What specific language are you refering to here?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  3. #33
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    What specific language are you refering to here?
    Please refer back to post #26
    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. #34
    VIP Member Array Crowman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    West Allis WI
    Posts
    2,761
    Quote Originally Posted by Mike1956 View Post
    What makes anybody believe that the Second Amendment would not be abolished completely if presented for consensus?
    Possibly correct.

    Actually the poll could be worded very simply without leading wording.

    Example:
    Should the second amendment to the the Constitutioin of the United States be abolished.
    YES_____

    NO_____
    "One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation."
    --Thomas B. Reed, American Attorney

    Second Amendment -- Established December 15, 1791 and slowly eroded ever since What happened to "..... shall not be infringed."

  5. #35
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Please refer back to post #26
    Not much of a help there. As you said the court addresses cases in general as narrowly as possible. But anyone trying to say that 2A means you can own a gun or carry a gun but not both is out of luck. The court specifically states that your interpretation that these are both our rights is correct.
    Nowhere in the ammendment does the phrase "keep or bear arms" appear. It is the right to "keep and bear arms" as stated
    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. 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. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed . . . .”16
    The individual right to possess and carry weapons.

    In Maryland we have Woollard v Sheridan which the state is appealing. A federal judge issued summary judgement in favor of Woollard. Citing Heller and McDonald:
    I I I. ANALYSIS
    The Second Amendment provides: “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.”
    U.S. CONST. amend. II. These 27 words, so long untroubled by significant judicial scrutiny,
    have become newly fertile ground for interpretation following the Supreme Court’s 2008
    decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). In brief, Heller presented the
    question whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, or protects
    only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. After a lengthy
    examination of the historical record, the Heller majority held that the Constitution guarantees
    “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” but left the contours
    of that right largely undefined. Id. at 592. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130
    S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment’s protections, whatever
    their bounds, apply fully to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
    This case requires the Court to answer two fundamental questions. The first asks whether
    the Second Amendment’s protections extend beyond the home, “where the need for defense of
    self, family, and property is most acute.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 628. This question was left
    unanswered in Heller, and has not been authoritatively addressed in the Fourth Circuit’s post-
    Heller decisions. Second, if the right to bear arms does extend beyond the home, the Court must
    decide whether Maryland’s requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate “good and
    substantial reason” to wear or carry a handgun passes constitutional muster. In undertaking these
    inquiries, the Court is guided by the Fourth Circuit’s recent opinion in United States v.
    Masciandaro, 638 F.3d 458 (4th Cir. 2011), which helpfully laid the foundation for resolution of
    the case at bar.
    From the top of page 13:
    For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the
    home. The signposts left by recent Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit case law all point to the
    conclusion that Woollard’s “claim to self-defense—asserted by him as a law-abiding citizen . . .
    —does implicate the Second Amendment, albeit subject to lawful limitations.” Masciandaro,
    638 F.3d at 468 (Niemeyer, J., concurring).9
    From the bottom of page 20:
    At bottom, this case rests on a simple proposition: If the Government wishes to burden a
    right guaranteed by the Constitution, it may do so provided that it can show a satisfactory
    justification and a sufficiently adapted method. The showing, however, is always the
    Government’s to make. A citizen may not be required to offer a “good and substantial reason”
    why he should be permitted to exercise his rights. The right’s existence is all the reason he
    needs.
    The Court wishes to emphasize the limits of this decision. While it finds Maryland’s
    requirement that a permit applicant demonstrate “good and substantial reason” to be
    unconstitutional, the Court does not address any of the State’s other regulations relating to the
    possession and use of firearms, many of which would qualify as presumptively lawful. Nor does
    the Court speculate as to whether a law that required a “good and substantial reason” only of
    law-abiding citizens who wish to carry a concealed handgun would be constitutional. Finally,
    the Court does not speak to Maryland’s ability to declare that a specific applicant is unfit for a
    permit because of some particular aspect of the applicant’s character or history.
    So it is pretty much settled law that we have not only the right to own firearms, but we also have the right to carry them. If Maryland pursues this all the way to the Supreme Court and they lose, the entire country over night basically becomes "shall issue" or "constitutional carry". This would include California, Chicago, NYC, etc. So as you can imagine there are a lot of folks (Bloomberg, Brown, Emmanuel etc.) that really don't want Maryland to fight this.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #36
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,112
    I don't trust idiots in congress to make a fart smell. Why would I trust them to make any amendments?
    oakchas likes this.
    Magazine <> clip - know the difference

    martyr is a fancy name for crappy fighter
    You have never lived until you have almost died. For those that have fought for it, life has a special flavor the protected will never know

  7. #37
    VIP Member Array Sig 210's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Southwestern OK
    Posts
    2,017
    Yep, just what we don't need; DC political perps messing with the US Constitution. Furthermore, two-thirds of the US congress can't agree rain is wet.
    oakchas likes this.

  8. #38
    VIP Member Array oakchas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    7,568
    Gentlemen, No. Leave the constitution alone. Let the states decide the laws within their boundaries. Let any infringement at the state (and below) level, as in Heller and McDonald, be tried in the supreme court.

    Fart smell, wet rain... chuckle. True enough...
    Rats!
    It could be worse!
    I suppose

  9. #39
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Instead of making fantasy thoughts based upon what should happen..... why don't you focus on facts. Do you understand what it takes to change the constitution?

    Constitutional Amendment Process

    In a nutshell:

    The Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures. None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution. Since the President does not have a constitutional role in the amendment process, the joint resolution does not go to the White House for signature or approval. The original document is forwarded directly to NARA's Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for processing and publication. The OFR adds legislative history notes to the joint resolution and publishes it in slip law format. The OFR also assembles an information package for the States which includes formal "red-line" copies of the joint resolution, copies of the joint resolution in slip law format, and the statutory procedure for ratification under 1 U.S.C. 106b.
    Furthermore you cannot CHANGE and amendment once it has been ratified.... you can repeal it or alter it with another amendment. Case in point the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st. So to the OP, in your fantasy world where the 2d amendment is changed or altered by another amendment.... do you really and I mean really believe that 2/3rds of the politicians in this country will do so in our best interest? If you do, I have some beach front property in AZ and FL I would like to sell you ASAP.

  10. #40
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    Not much of a help there. ~~ clipped Nowhere in the ammendment does the phrase "keep or bear arms" appear. It is the right to "keep and bear arms" as stated

    In Maryland we have Woollard v Sheridan which the state is appealing. A federal judge issued summary judgement in favor of Woollard. Citing Heller and McDonald:
    Please understand that you and I read the 2A the same way. However, there are many for whatever reason, whether it be simple misunderstanding or those who are nefariously wishing to do irreparable harm to our 2A rights look for any twist to take them away. Which is where I suggest not an amendment to repeal or abolish.. but to once and for all define. Did the 19th or 26th Amendments take away our rights to Vote or simply define them? The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    So why would anyone be afraid of an amendment that seeks only to define? Once that Definition becomes ratified.. The SCOTUS has to use it when determining Constitutionality of Laws coming before them. There would be no further doubt and all the millions if not billions of $$$ presently being spent getting said anti-constitutional laws before the SCOTUS would drop immensely, saving the US Citizens all that much more State and Federal tax revenue.

    I would like to ask if you have a link to the Maryland - Woollard v Sheridan case, that you can post?
    What you posted does contain the exact type of twisting that I was speaking of when I said that the limited opinion that was handed down in Heller v DC and the complete failure to address anything in McDonald is leading to the ability to cite those rulings as meaning that We have a Right to keep and bear arms in our homes only. Said another way.. to keep arms in our homes.. but not to bear them publicly.

    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810
    From I I I. ANALYSIS
    In brief, Heller presented the question whether the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms, or protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. After a lengthy examination of the historical record, the Heller majority held that the constitution guarantees “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” but left the contours of that right largely undefined. Id. at 592. Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment’s protections, whatever their bounds, apply fully to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
    emphasis added

    This analysis is all well and good, but without knowing the actual question that was poised to the Court and the exact finding by the Court.. what you posted could easily be taken completely out of context.
    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.

  11. #41
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    Fantasy land = expecting 2/3rd of elected officials to do something in your best interest

  12. #42
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by azchevy View Post
    ~~ clipped ~~ why don't you focus on facts. ~~ clipped ~~Furthermore you cannot CHANGE and amendment once it has been ratified.... you can repeal it or alter it with another amendment. ~~ clipped ~~ If you do, I have some beach front property in AZ and FL I would like to sell you ASAP.
    emphasis added

    Yes, let us focus on Facts.. The title to this thread is We should consider a new amendment to clarify the 2A

    Explain how a NEW Amendment to CLARIFY is repealing or tampering with the 2A to begin with? What it will do is clarify the meanings of Keep and Bear arms once and for all, and if authored properly can define that these rights extend only to lawful citizens of the United States and to the United States in whole. My intent here is to meaning that anyone who is not a Lawful US Citizen (an illegal alien) or is a Citizen who can not be considered as Law Abiding (a convicted felon) has no protection under this amendment... but that those who are US Citizens have the right to not only own but to carry (and how do I say carry-- in a manner consistent with their personal desires) throughout the entire United States without need for additional permits, registries, etc.. this may need a bit more work before being proposed.. but the concept is there.

    There should also be additional qualifiers that prevents Congress from enacting any limits upon the rights as well. Such as the verbiage of "and shall not be impaired, infringed, abridged, denied or disparaged" my suggestion of and "upon ratification of this amendment all laws contained in our Federal Codes or of the several states which are now contradictory to this amendment shall be immediately considered repealed" is in itself a bit redundant in that as soon as it is Ratified, it serves to repeal all the Laws that exist State and Federal that are in contradiction to the Amendment.

    As for your having beach front property in FL that you would sell.. Great! I am sure there will be many folks who would take you up on it since Florida has so much beach line.

    If you were trying to harass me with that last as you have with other extraneous posts in this thread.. all you did was reflect badly upon yourself.
    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.

  13. #43
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    All I am reading in this thread is your fantasy of doing something that not only have our elected officials not even talked about, but that probably won't happen in your or my lifetime. So carry on with your hypothesis and opinion.

    Emphasis added:

    It is entertaining.

  14. #44
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    5,105
    http://marylandshallissue.org/share/...rd_Opinion.pdf

    The issue in the Woollard case is the requirement in Maryland to have a "good and substantial reason" to acquire a permit to carry a handgun.
    This is not to own a handgun. It is perfectly legal in Maryland to carry a handgun in your home, or your place of business with no permit. The only place a permit is required is outside ones home or business. As the court has stated that the "good and substantial reason" requirement is contrary to the second ammendment it follows that the second ammendment is not limited to ones home or place of business. Any argument to the contrary is not going to fly. Can anyone name another fundemental right we enjoy only in our own homes?

    What the judge has said was that Maryland could have that "good and substantial reason" requirement for someone wishing to carry a concealed
    handgun, but they can not require it for someone who wishes to carry a handgun openly. Maryland carry permits do not differentiate between concealed and open carry. Therefore Maryland is going to have to either become "shall issue" with permits or strike the law prohibiting the open carry of handguns in public places. The only charge they could then bring is if you carried concealed without a permit.

    As far a another ammendment, why should we expect that people would not try to twist that clarifying ammendment as they have tried twist the second?
    And, do you really think the people that said that they had to vote on Obamacare before they could read it are the people you want changing the Constitution?

    ETA: "keep" and "bear" have been clarified by SCOTUS in Heller. What further clarification do you think is needed?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  15. #45
    Ex Member Array azchevy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Oceanfront Property
    Posts
    3,850
    AZ let's me own pretty much what I want and carry pretty much where I want, with few restrictions. I am happy with the way things are.

Page 3 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.