New 2d Amendment?

[SIGguy229]

Came across this while doing some research...

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html

Towards the bottom...

[Copy and paste from the website]

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

This proposed amendment is a truer representation of how our society views our freedom to bear arms. Because "reasonableness" can be far too elastic, the two-Congress restriction requires that two Congresses in a row pass the same bill — this allows both thoughtful reflection and for the opinions of the people, to be expressed between these votes, to be heard (both at the ballot box and in general). It is an unusual, but not unprecedented, way of passing legislation. Finally, the courts would have the ultimate authority in determining if a restriction is not reasonable, providing a final layer of protection (after the two pairs of debate in the House and Senate and the President's own agreement). The militia is removed from the equation, greatly clarifying the purpose of the amendment.

Historical note: in Section 2, the "collecting" clause was added, and Section 3 is a replacement for "The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation" after concerns over "reasonableness" were examined more fully.

[End of copy and paste]

Thoughts? Scare the cr@p out of you yet???

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[peacefuljeffrey]

Why would it scare me? It actually sounds like a step toward reason.

As it is, there are legitimate concerns that the current 2nd Amendment does not clearly protect our firearms without opening the door to interpretations that bazookas and grenades and mortars are also protected. And then the question arises: Should they be?

The fact that many or most agree that those latter weapons are not protected for ownership by the individual is used to weaken the position that high powered firearms are. Anti-gunners say, "Well, clearly since we all agree that you can't let civilians have mortars, the right to keep and bear arms is not 'absolute'; and as such, maybe it is reasonable to prohibit handguns..."

What is it about this rewording that you find scary?

[Chooie]

Mainly, the fact that the second amendment was not put into the Bill of Rights to ensure we could hunt or target shoot - but was there to ensure the People had the capability to overthrow the Government if it became oppressive. Let's not forget the tyranny and oppression our founding fathers fought against, even as they were penning the Constitution. Let's not also overlook the fact that it's not a stretch to consider any class III/NFA full auto or select fire "unreasonable" for "hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense."

[Pete]

What is it about this rewording that you find scary?

The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Now where have I heard reasonable before?

Probably every piece of ambiguous legislation ever...

[rodc13]

The "reasonable" part also scares me. Talk about making something ambiguous!

The more I read of this thread, I'm more grateful than ever for the wisdom and foresight of our founding fathers, and the framers of our Constitution.

[SammyIamToday]

Well, I guess it would alleviate the need to play mental gymnastics.

Seriously though, really bad idea.

Arms means arms and it should stay that way. Also, the 2nd was never just about the militia, it was also intended as a replacement option for a broken government.

[Tangle]

What's wrong with the 2nd the way it is?

[Zundfolge]

The antis have spent the last two centuries twisting the excellent language of the original second amendment, why do we think re-writing it would change anything?

One mistake we make is looking at the 2A as the source of our right to keep and bear arms.

The 2A is fine the way it is, we just need to get the politicritters to stop twisting the language into something its not.

[Bob The Great]

That's a big negative. God-given rights should not be ambiguous, and they should not change with society. Those are called priviledges.

I have a couple of problems with that bit of proposed wording too. The first is the word "reasonable". This word basically takes the rest of the text and makes it optional. Not a good thing when it's supposed to be authoritative.

I also object to specifically enumerating approved purposes for excercise of a right, because it implies that any other purpose is forbidden. All that's required is to redefine the named purposes so narrowly that they become useless, and any strength in the wording goes away. Another possibility would be to label all arms as reasonable for rebellion (for example), which is not specifically protected, and therefore, even though a particular weapon may be reasonable for hunting or self-defense, it is also reasonable for rebellion and therefore banned.

I noticed that while "keeping arms" is protected under this wording, "bearing arms" is curiously absent. I consider the right to bear arms as equally as important as the right to keep them. Bearing is what makes an arm useful. It does you no good to keep them if you cannot use them.

If you take out these qualifiers on the right, you're left with

"The right of the people to keep and beararms shall not be infringed"

Which is exactly what the current 2A already says.

A quick note on RPG's, grenades, flame throwers, etc: For consistency, yes, the private ownership of these weapons should be protected by the 2A. Their use, on the other hand, should be regulated, just as the use of a handgun is regulated. Area-effect weapons demand more care in maintenance, storage, and use, which can be regulated, but their posession should not necessarily be banned.

Before anyone makes the jump to include tanks, artillery pieces, and stealth fighters, there is a line, and it's pretty clear. "Arms," in its original context, was taken to mean any weapon that could be carried and operated by one man. Anything that had to be crew-served or transported with the help of a horse (todays analogue would be a self-propelled gun) was considered artillery, not arms.

[BAC]

Recognizing that the need to arm the populace as a militia is no longer of much concern, but also realizing that firearms are a part of our history and culture and are used by many for both personal defense and sport, this site has proposed a new 2nd Amendment — an amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. This proposed text is offered as a way to spark discussion of the topic.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval.

Absolutely not!

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting purposes. It defends the rights of the citizens of this country, who compose this country's militia, to keep and bear arms and protect themselves from anyone who would infringe upon their rights, be they federal or foreign forces or local brigands and burglars.

I will not stand behind this new proposal and will fight, if necessary and exactly as was intended by the Second Amendment, to protect my Constitutional rights from harm. We don't tolerate messing around with the other amendments, and this one is no different.

"Shall NOT be infringed."


-B

[CopperKnight]

One mistake we make is looking at the 2A as the source of our right to keep and bear arms.

ABSOLUTELY!

The constitution is not the source of our rights. They are "God given" if you will ("natural rights" if you prefer). They are merely spelled out in the Constitution.

As I recall from a book whose title I have long forgotten, there was much debate from the Founding Fathers about putting the Bill of Rights in the first place. Some were afraid of exactly what has happened. This is that any right not spelled out aren't considered "rights" but privileges to be controlled and canceled at the whim of the government, and the only rights we have are what are "given" to us in the Constitution. Even then, most of those have been curtailed and controlled by legislation.

I had better stop now before I go too far into the political realm and violate our rules.

[peacefuljeffrey]

What's wrong with the 2nd the way it is?

Well, frankly, all the arguing over what it means is the problem.
And that is engendered by the fact that it remains somewhat ambiguous, particularly for those who are not out to argue that citizens should be allowed to have, privately, everything that the military has, i.e. RPGs, mines, tanks, etc.

I'm in favor of a very broad interpretetation of the right to arms; but the wording of the 2nd Amendment leaves room for others to challenge the scope. That, and the preamble part should not be there. That nuisance preamble part is 100% of what give the antis the impetus to say, "Yeah, but only if you're part of the National Guard!"

In fact, if it simply were whittled down to, "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," I would be relatively satisfied. Of course, then the antis would be splitting hairs over what the word "infringed" still allows them to, well, infringe.

How about, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms is absolute and inviolable"?

Then they'd be saying, "Oh, so you can't take away guns from some guy you're sending to prison? He can sit in his cell with his AK-47 and his high capacity magazines?"

There's always going to be some idjit who wants to argue with what we know is the clear meaning of the protection; careful wording can help us either avoid most of it, or conquer it when it rears itself.

You're right, I do take issue with "reasonable." That's crap. But with a mechanism for review of any gun that would be prohibited, that goes a step toward serious protection. I know, I know, the counter to that is, "What if we had a few terms of a majority of really anti-gun jerks." For that reason, even if the possibility's remote, I would also oppose that language.

[jualdeaux]

Well, frankly, all the arguing over what it means is the problem.

Only for those who flunked English in school. Or those who deliberately want to change what it says.

[peacefuljeffrey]

True, it's only idiots and liars who argue with what the framers were actually guaranteeing. But our recognition of this in no way mitigates the damage that antis do by disingenuously introducing their fraudulent "meanings" to the public.

So that was exactly my point. The amendment could be worded a ******* lot better and more precisely so that there is far less wiggle-room for people to twist the meaning. But we already know that the way it's currently written has opened the door for cynical distortion of the meaning.

[raytracer]

Okay. Let's translate this to see exactly what the problem is.

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

First off, let's assume that it wouldn't get modified to end here. Wouldn't be the first time.

Section 2. The right of the people to keep arms reasonable for hunting, sport, collecting, and personal defense shall not be infringed.

The right of the people to keep arms approved by a government body, most likely appointed not elected, shall not be infringed.

Section 3. Restrictions of arms must be found to be reasonable under Section 2 by a two-thirds vote of Congress in two consecutive sessions of Congress before they can be forwarded to the President for approval

And by not infringed, we mean that they will be infringed by a majority vote.

People always seem to forget: The Constitution does not grant rights. It places specific limits on the goverments power. Once you start using it to grant rights, you start reinforcing the concept that those rights are the government's to give, and thence to take away.

Joe