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; The Supreme Court of the United States is the only body authorized by the Constitution to "clarify" amendments. The only way to re-do an amendment, ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 54 of 54
Like Tree30Likes

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

  1. #46
    VIP Member
    Array Mike1956's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Marion County, Ohio
    Posts
    10,162
    The Supreme Court of the United States is the only body authorized by the Constitution to "clarify" amendments. The only way to re-do an amendment, as stated earlier is to abolish it. What you are advocating would actually require TWO additional amendments: one to abolish the current Second Amendment; then another to replace it with the current will of Congress.
    "When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk."
    Tuco

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #47
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    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?
    I thank you for the link.. it helps to understand the context in which it the argument in that case was made.

    And again, that is still a case that if found in favor of Gun-Rights, converting Maryland to a Shall Issue state, it still does not effectively overrule the anti-constitutional laws of Illinois. When a case makes it before the SCOTUS that in effect would declare the Laws of Illinois which presently are allowing permits to carry to be refused as being Unconstitutional.. then we are talking a big WIN for the 2A..

    It sounds like Maryland is presently where Washington State was in till the 1980's as to obtain my first CWP here, I had to provide a Good reason to need to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Now, we are a shall issue state where as long as the State can not say that "we are Unsafe to carry" (druggie, mental defect, or violent person) or are a proven hardened criminal.. they have to issue to us. To me that is completely backward to what our founding fathers had in mind. I can see stripping away a right to carry if found to be a hardened criminal, a habitual drug user, or a person who can not control his temper. Those should be the only reasons that a person should not have a right to Keep and Bear arms however fits their personal needs and desires.

    And unfortunately.. as McDonald v Chicago showed.. the SCOTUS did not want to make clarifications by stipulating once and for all that the way you and I read the 2A is the way it should be read. Had they made that point, I would be 100% in agreement with you that there is no need for additional clarification.

    My biggest concern presently is that "IF" Obama gets reelected and "IF" the make-up of the Senate does not swing back toward the conservative side.. then all that we are discussing and postulating now will be worthless anyway.
    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. #48
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    ~~ clipped ~~ Can anyone name another fundemental right we enjoy only in our own homes? ~~ clipped ~~
    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? ~~
    Yes, try the 3A The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    This is where the definition comes in so important from the start so as to leave little room for alternative interpretation.

    As for what happened with ObamaCare.. If you recall, that was a last minute passage through a Democratically controlled house and a Democratically Controlled Senate prior to the recess, to where that bill got sent to the President before the make up of the House changed from a majority of democrats to a majority of republicans but was too late to attempt a repeal of that act.

    If you refer to my last post you will find where I somewhat eluded to this.. but I did not explain as I just did.
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; April 9th, 2012 at 03:35 PM. Reason: corrected misstatement
    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.

  5. #49
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Yes, try the 3A The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

    This is where the definition comes in so important from the start so as to leave little room for alternative interpretation.
    It says nothing of "home". Can you show any case law where the court has found that in peace time someone owning multiple properties can be forced to house soldiers in any of them other than specific one in which they reside? Are you saying that if I own a hotel I can be forced to provide rooms to soldiers against my will during peace time?
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  6. #50
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    It says nothing of "home". Can you show any case law where the court has found that in peace time someone owning multiple properties can be forced to house soldiers in any of them other than specific one in which they reside? Are you saying that if I own a hotel I can be forced to provide rooms to soldiers against my will during peace time?
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
    emphasis added

    Agreed, however, most will read the concept of someone being housed without permission of the Owner as meaning a housed in a "Home" If you read the note on this one.. Notes on the U.S. Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net you will see that it does not apply to tenants, only to the owner of the home that someone is being housed in. So in answer to your question pertaining to if you were the owner of a Hotel.. Yes.. Congress can House (or Quarter) Soldiers in your Hotel.. Provided they pass a law allowing them to do so.
    Last edited by LkWd_Don; April 9th, 2012 at 04:11 PM. Reason: Answered Question
    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.

  7. #51
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    But you did not answer my question. They can be housed as prescribed by law during war. There is no question on that. I asked if you can show any case law that says I would have to provide them rooms against my will during peace time.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  8. #52
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    From my last post.
    Quote Originally Posted by LkWd_Don View Post
    Yes.. Congress can House (or Quarter) Soldiers in your Hotel.. Provided they pass a law allowing them to do so.
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    But you did not answer my question. They can be housed as prescribed by law during war. There is no question on that. I asked if you can show any case law that says I would have to provide them rooms against my will during peace time.
    Yes I did. The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
    They would have to pass a law to allow them to.

    The 3A is Constructed much the same as how the 2A is and should be read in the same manner. I would have to dig a bit.. but think that I saw a provision in the most recent NDAA that covers that. I will not swear to it as I am not certain and will need to confirm it.
    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. #53
    VIP Member Array mcp1810's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    4,949
    If you follow the grammatical dissection the court typically applies to 3A it says that in peace time soldiers can not be quartered in any house against the will of it's owner. Only during time of war is it permitted and then only in conformance to such laws as may be passed to provide for such quartering.
    The question the second circuit dealt with was more to the point of how to define"owner" in this context. There was never a question as to who actually owned the building in question as it was part of the prison. The state did in fact own the building they placed the troops in. had the stated evicted the guards who only lived there because of their employment prior to moving the troops in there would have been no case.
    Infowars- Proving David Hannum right on a daily basis

  10. #54
    Member Array LkWd_Don's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Lakewood JBLM vicinity
    Posts
    191
    Quote Originally Posted by mcp1810 View Post
    If you follow the grammatical dissection the court typically applies to 3A it says that in peace time soldiers can not be quartered in any house against the will of it's owner. Only during time of war is it permitted and then only in conformance to such laws as may be passed to provide for such quartering.
    I can accept that, as even if the Government were to try to take it against the Owners will during peace time, the 5A would apply. "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    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 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

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.