Please don't assume anything undeclared about anyone's background, or if you do then keep it to yourself.
- Manlobbi
Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 6
Bottom line: The Second Amendment is so vague it's an obsolete menace.
If the 'well-regulated militia' preface has no effect on the rest of the paragraph, rewrite the entire amendment. Regulation is desperately needed.
--------------------------------------------------
Today's news: "A man who shot and killed 18 people in Lewiston, Maine last October may have been suffering from traumatic brain injuries, doctors have said.
The shooting was executed by 40-year-old Robert Card, a US Army reservist and certified firearms instructor.
Card was found dead days after the incident from a self-inflicted gunshot.
Army records showed Card had no combat deployments, but doctors said on Wednesday that he may have suffered brain injuries during military drills.
Card was a "long-time" instructor at an Army hand grenade training range, according to a statement released by the Concussion Legacy Foundation on Wednesday."
During that time he was exposed to "thousands of low-level blasts", the organisation said.
Dr Ann McKee from Boston University's CTE Center, who conducted the study, said in the statement that nerve fibres in Card's brain showed "significant degeneration... inflammation" and "small blood vessel injury"."
Clearly there must be conditions and restraints added to a firearms amendment.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Clearly there must be conditions and restraints added to a firearms amendment.Here's one simple attempt by John Paul Stevens - from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-e..."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."But this says nothing about the rights of people who are not currently serving in a militia, nor what a militia actually is in practice.
I'm sure there are much better attempts out there. It seems that the main theme of any rewritten 2A would be about limiting the right to "bear arms", rather than granting it.
And should a new 2A say anything about the right to "bear" any other means of offense or defense, such as knives, brass knuckles, clubs, tasers, bear spray, etc.? Would I have the right to walk around "armed to the teeth" with a collection of such things? Currently, New York limits what types of knives can be bought and carried: no "gravity knives" for example.
No. of Recommendations: 0
"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."
If we're trying to preserve the rights of States to have well-regulated militias, then the solution is far simpler.
Just make it clear that the 2A applies only to the federal government (absolutely), and it doesn't apply to the State governments. The feds can never infringe the right to bear arms, and States can adopt whatever regulations they want - since it's their call what state of armed populace serves the goals and requirements of the well-regulated militia.
If we're looking at it through the "protect the State militia power" framework, things like a federal AWB are pretty indefensible. The Federal government shouldn't be making the choice to prohibit the types of weapons that people owning (or being familiar with) would be most useful for a militia. States, however, would be perfectly free to ban them if they felt the downside to their populace was not worth the benefit to their militia's readiness.
No. of Recommendations: 5
"States, however, would be perfectly free to ban them if they felt the downside to their populace was not worth the benefit to their militia's readiness."
What's the point?
If the point of laws is to address major problems (can we agree that the ubiquity of high capacity/rapid fire weapons in our nation is a big problem?),
then 50 different rules render all rules useless since a person can easily fill his trunk with machine guns purchased just over the border of an adjacent state.
No. of Recommendations: 3
If the point of laws is to address major problems (can we agree that the ubiquity of high capacity/rapid fire weapons in our nation is a big problem?), then 50 different rules render all rules useless since a person can easily fill his trunk with machine guns purchased just over the border of an adjacent state.
The point of laws is to address major problems, and the point of Constitutional restrictions is to prevent Legislatures from enacting certain laws even if they're intended to address major problems. If the goal is to protect the ability of States to have militias, then you would allow them to provide for the arming of their citizenry. That might be in conflict with other public policy goals, but every constitutional protection does that.
Plus, it's hardly uncommon for the public policy decisions of one State to frustrate the goals of an adjacent state. We might allow one state to permit unrestricted alcohol sales...even though that makes it much harder for adjacent states to restrict alcohol sales, since someone can easily cross the border. Lot of traffic heading north into New Hampshire from Boston to visit the packies on Sundays. Any state can allow the sale of abortion medications, even though it makes it harder for adjacent states to prohibit access to abortion medications. Etc.
No. of Recommendations: 2
The point of laws is to address major problems, and the point of Constitutional restrictions is to prevent Legislatures from enacting certain laws even if they're intended to address major problems. If the goal is to protect the ability of States to have militias, then you would allow them to provide for the arming of their citizenry. That might be in conflict with other public policy goals, but every constitutional protection does that.
So, for example, Texas could pass a law that mandated every citizen 18 or older be issues 5 AR-15s and 10000 rounds of ammo, because Texas feels that's what's needed to support a state militia?
There's got to be something wrong about that.
No. of Recommendations: 2
And BTW, this has probably been discussed ad nauseum before, but what's the purpose of the third coma in the 2A as currently written? It seems completely superfluous.
AMENDMENT II. 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.
(*) This one!
No. of Recommendations: 0
I would say "a typo", but that document was handwritten. Maybe it was a proper thing to do 250 years ago? I never noticed it, so it's an interesting (to me) question. I don't think it changes the meaning, as near as I can tell.
No. of Recommendations: 1
So, for example, Texas could pass a law that mandated every citizen 18 or older be issues 5 AR-15s and 10000 rounds of ammo, because Texas feels that's what's needed to support a state militia?
Oh, they could do that now. States have enormous legislative power. If Texas wanted to hand out 5 AR-15's and ammo to every adult, there's nothing stopping them. And just because a neighboring state might prefer they didn't wouldn't be any legal obstacle to them doing so, if they chose.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Oh, they could do that now. States have enormous legislative power. If Texas wanted to hand out 5 AR-15's and ammo to every adult, there's nothing stopping them. And just because a neighboring state might prefer they didn't wouldn't be any legal obstacle to them doing so, if they chose.
Well, that's what I consider a problem. What if instead of AR-15s Texas issued shoulder fired rocket propelled grenades? Are you saying there couldn't be an amendment that limits that particular state right?
No. of Recommendations: 1
IANAL, but unless the federal is allowed to interpret the militia clause as written, then TX could issue RPGs to anyone (not even restricted to adults). Of course, NM could then institute a law that says if you are in possession of an RPG, it is an automatic death penalty.
It makes no sense to have a hodge-podge like that, but from my understanding, that's what we have (and will have) until Heller and McDonald are overturned.
No. of Recommendations: 3
Well, that's what I consider a problem. What if instead of AR-15s Texas issued shoulder fired rocket propelled grenades? Are you saying there couldn't be an amendment that limits that particular state right?
Oh, there could be an Amendment that did that. But there isn't presently. And unless there's a federal prohibition on possessing rocket propelled grenades (I assume there is, but I don't know for sure), then each state is free to decide for themselves whether to allow their citizens to own rocket-propelled grenades.
Again, our country is a bit of a kludge, as far as nations go. We're a hybrid between a collection of sovereign countries that are bound by a common treaty area (like the EU) and a single nation. The States are sovereigns - they are not political subdivisions of the national government, and they do not derive their power from the national government. They have transferred some of their sovereign power to the federal government and have subordinated themselves via the Supremacy Clause - but in areas where the federal government has not exercised its power (or where it doesn't have power), the States are the final and supreme sovereign.
No. of Recommendations: 1
They [the states] have transferred some of their sovereign power to the federal government and have subordinated themselves via the Supremacy Clause - but in areas where the federal government has not exercised its power (or where it doesn't have power), the States are the final and supreme sovereign.
Ok, so in short: the states can do what they want as long as it doesn't violate federal law.
No. of Recommendations: 2
Ok, so in short: the states can do what they want as long as it doesn't violate federal law.
Yep. In all things where there is no federal law, the States are in charge. I mean, I'm sure there are probably some odd little exceptions here and there around the country (like maybe some State-Indian tribe compacts or something like that), but for the most part the States are the sovereign in all areas where federal law doesn't govern.
No. of Recommendations: 1
Ok, so in short: the states can do what they want as long as it doesn't violate federal law.
Yep. In all things where there is no federal law, the States are in charge. I mean, I'm sure there are probably some odd little exceptions here and there around the country (like maybe some State-Indian tribe compacts or something like that), but for the most part the States are the sovereign in all areas where federal law doesn't govern.
And it's been my experience in life that no one gives up an advantage unless there's a benefit to them, quid pro quo. And an abstract idea such as we all benefit from the reduction in violence and murder if we allow the federal Government to restrict the arms we are allowed to have is too difficult an idea to sell across 50 states.
And it definitely appears that those shaping the 14th intended to get an individual right to keep and bear arms to the population, and blacks, so reinterpreting that is far to difficult. One thing left is too pick up the original definition of infringed - to break, violate, not its meaning now of encroach, to allow the Federal government to limit the type of arms the people can have, and that is too difficult right now. We have to wait for zealots and members of the USSC to die off to attempt it, with no guarantee of success. The idea of passing an amendment is just extremely difficult, and not worth trying IMHO.
