General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsIs there any movement to repeal the second ammendment?
There ought to be. As long as it is on the books it will be trouble.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Rust limp gaul isn't much of an example for the first, you now what I mean .
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)There's no enumerated right in the Constitution for cars, yet lots of people own them.
The 2nd amendment as it has been interpreted just recently only serves as an obstacle to reasonable regulation. As such it has far outlived its usefulness and should be removed.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Most states don't allow felons and certain others to possess guns and certain types of guns are further restricted to everyone. It's just a matter of how far we can regulate them.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)not mention inalienable/unalienable rights as PA & VT acknowledged but in Heller both opinion and dissent justices acknowledge preexisting rights that do not depend upon our Constitution.
PA & VT could not have given away inalienable/unalienable rights when they ratified our Constitution and BOR and they preexist our Constitution.
If the Second Amendment did not exist, then PA & VT's "right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" would still exist and protected as an unenumerated right under the Ninth.
A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The reason Stevens acknowledged PA and VT constitutions is because he specifically provided them as examples of how Madison knew about the inclusion of civilian uses for firearms in other constitutions and specifically declined to include such language in the 2nd Amendment.
Using the 9th Amendment as justification for a civilian right to "keep and bear arms" is a pretty weak argument generally only found deep in the annals of gun nuttery. Even Scalia doesn't even try to make that weak argument in the majority opinion, and he makes a number of other weak arguments.
jody
(26,624 posts)I can understand how someone who has an agenda to deny law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense would arrive at different understanding of the highlighted passages from PA and VT constitutions than others who support the plain meaning of those passages.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)That's my point, five justices say the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self defense as a pre-existing right.
Four dissenting justices reject the opinion but acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms for self defense is a pre-existing right.
One can twist their statement anyway they wish but the if the dissent every becomes the majority then RKBA as a pre-existing right is then protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The question in front of the court was not the scope of the 2A. The question before the court was the constitutionality of the DC ban. If the 9A argument had any merit, Scalia would have mentioned it. In the majority decision he only mentions the 9A in relation to the context of what "the people" meant.
If this argument had any merit whatsoever, there's no question Scalia would have included it. Instead his argument centered almost solely over the text of the amendment. Scalia pretends to be an "originalist" when it comes to the Constitution, and if he actually had used the method he claims to subscribe, he would have reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Stevens points this out brilliantly in his dissent. Just like most of the other garbage that comes out of Scalia, his decision was complete shit and flies in the face of everything Scalia supposedly stands in support.
jody
(26,624 posts)on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."
A number of people in 2007 asked whether the question Scalia posed was too narrow.
I'm not an attorney and not a Constitutional scholar but back in 2007 I was persuaded that a better question might have been, "Is there an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and if yes is it protected by the Second Amendment as an enumerated right or by the Ninth Amendment as an unenumerated right?"
I do not apologize for my structure above since I've already identified myself as not an attorney nor constitutional scholar.
Still I believe that would have been a better question than posed in Heller.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)The question came to him. His job as a SCOTUS justice is to stand as one of 9 final arbiters to questions posed to the court. Regardless of what argument you think Scalia should have made, the only thing that matters is what argument he actually did make because that was the argument that was addressed by the dissent.
Scalia is an originalist who believes that the Constitution should reflect the ordinary meaning of a reasonable person who lived at the time it was written. Scalia has repeatedly said that if the Constitution doesn't say it, you can't infer it. So even if the 9th Amendment argument had any validity whatsoever (and I'm certainly not saying it does), it is a non-starter for both Scalia and Thomas who are both originalists. Scalia's argument was that the 2nd Amendment specifically included the right of self-defense, calling it "analogous" to other state constitutions which actually did specifically include such language (as you have already pointed out). Stevens, the other dissenting justices, and the best legal minds in the country tore Scalia a new asshole for his decision, and what was his response? Fuck you, I'm a SCOTUS justice and you're not. That was his answer which only proves what a complete fuckup he is. He's a hypocritical asshole who rails against "activist judges", then becomes one when it suits his ideology and simply ignores his critics. Both him and Thomas have no business as SCOTUS jurists and neither should have ever been confirmed. Even Bush knew what fuckups Scalia and Thomas are. That's why neither was made Chief Justice and never will be.
jody
(26,624 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Because it doesn't appear as if you understand what the Stevens dissent means. You would help yourself by reading all of it. Stevens listed two state (commonwealth) documents that included language for self defense which supported his argument that self-defense was specifically excluded from the 2A. That doesn't mean he "acknowledged" that right as it applies to the 2nd Amendment or any other. He simply cited factual information in historical documents which support his argument just like any other judge does. Certainly VA and PA could include a civilian right to bear arms just like any other state can in their own constitution. Stevens never challenged this because that's NOT the argument Scalia made.
Here is the wiki article on the 9th Amendment. The only reference to what you are saying is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The reference provided by wiki is a gun nut site.
I'm not going to entertain gun nut arguments written by gun nuts for the consumption of gun nuts. My only interest is discussing what the SCOTUS decision actually argued and actually said, not some tangential fantasy argument from some gun nut web site. Scalia didn't even go there and I damn sure ain't. If you want to, be my guest, but I'm not going there with you. If you want to have that discussion, the gungeon is the perfect place for it. You won't find me in there. Just sayin'
jody
(26,624 posts)point I make.
I'll continue later with someone else who can. Goodbye.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x177461
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)I understand exactly what your argument is and where it comes from which I pointed out some time ago in post #17. I can provide references to this argument going back as far as 40 years ago at least. So I'm sure you'd like people to believe it's your idea, but I find it quite hard to believe you would somehow come up with an independent conclusion that just so happens to mirror the nuttiest of gun nuttery that's been around for decades.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I actually lean towards that view; I think the 2nd amendment protects our right to keep firearms in a town arsenal.
treestar
(82,383 posts)So as to get the statehouse votes needed.
Connecticut - good place to start. Then list the states that should be targeted. Too bad the 2010 election created so many right wing state houses. That needs working on, too.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Jenoch
(7,720 posts)an amendment must be passed by a 2/3 vote in congress.
treestar
(82,383 posts)We need to not back down because it's hard, though. Get the mechanisms into place for when there is a Democratic, i.e., more reasonable House/Senate. And quit electing Republicans to all offices.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)H2O Man
(73,559 posts)HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)with respect to due process for the mentally ill.
jody
(26,624 posts)consequences aka "what goes around, comes around."
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)The 14th amendment provides Constitutional rights amongst them Due Process.
I don't understand your comment.
jody
(26,624 posts)Amendment and applies to the states.
PA(1776) & VT(1777) acknowledged RKBA is an inalienable/unalienable right and SCOTUS acknowledged the Second Amendment preexisted our Constitution, then McDonald v Chicago linked all that together under the Fourteenth, didn't it?
HereSince1628
(36,063 posts)my comment re the 14th and due process was about the pubic outcry, and that of the NRA, for denying the broadly characterized "mentally ill' the right to own firearms without a trial or opportunity to contest that action.
jody
(26,624 posts)ZombieMan
(3 posts)Zoeisright
(8,339 posts)If that's a challenge, I accept it.
NickB79
(19,253 posts)By "we", I mean the progressive/left/Democratic party.
Something like 100 million households in the US have guns. A large portion of those are Democrats as well as the stereotypical conservative population. Numerous polls over the years here on DU alone have shown that a large number of DU'ers own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, albeit with wide disagreement on how it's interpreted and implemented.
We're finally seeing the possibility that we've broken the stranglehold the GOP has had on this country since Reagan was elected. Obama was re-elected despite numerous problems that he inherited, and the tide felt like it was finally turning towards a more progressive way of politics in this country.
Has it occurred to anyone else just why Obama was virtually silent on gun control his entire first term? If he had tried to re-instate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban then, his chances for re-election would have been stymied.
The political backlash against a push for an outright ban on gun ownership through repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be epic in scale. The NRA would have so much money pouring in, they wouldn't be able to spend it fast enough.
banned from Kos
(4,017 posts)Gun bans are political suicide.
Dems to Win
(2,161 posts)Please help kick the thread to the front page
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022055101
Half of American homes do not have guns, yet we are at terrible risk from the lethal weapons in our neighbors' homes. Enough! Time for us to speak out.
That's why I created a petition to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama, which says:
"Repeal the Second Amendment Now. This anachronistic, poorly worded amendment prevents us from passing real gun control measures that will be effective in stopping the ongoing gun slaughter. It should be no more a constitutional right to own a gun than to own a car."
Will you sign my petition? Click here to add your name:
http://signon.org/sign/repeal-the-second-amendment-6?source=c.fwd&r_by=5543184
-..__...
(7,776 posts)4 more and you can have yourself a game of soccer.
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)It takes 33 states.
That doesn't mean don't try... just noting that it is something that will not happen for a very long time.
Having the Suprme Court rewrite the 2nd Amendment is much more doable, though neither is easy.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)with Bloomberg financing any and all candidates to be for just that
money talks, the NRA will be history as they no longer can blackmail candidates and common sense will prevail within 6 to 12 years
the NRA will say nothing is happening, but then redwoods take a while once planted to bloom
the NRA has less than 4 million members, some of which are dead.
Put that figure w/total population and its 1.5 %.
98.5% of the people don't want it
and in each state, even the reddest, there are people.
many things can be done, including taking away the tax free status for one
It's a perfect storm, and there are people in place that can achieve this consittutionally
NickB79
(19,253 posts)In the face of that kind of onslaught on their perceived rights?!? Really?
Hell, I expect the NRA's numbers and donations to EXPLODE in the next year just because of the whispers of more gun control we're already seeing due to Sandy Hook.
The main reason the NRA's numbers and income has been dropping in recent years is that the Democrats haven't thrown them any red meat to rally the troops, so to speak. There's a damn good reason Obama didn't say anything about gun control, or push new gun control measures, in his first term. It would have made his re-election much more difficult, and put many of his fellow Democrats from gun-friendly states in a very awkward position. It may sound crazy, but the NRA lives off things like this. It gives validation to their paranoid claims that Democrats are out to "come take your guns away!"
Bloomberg's finances would have a hard time competing with the bump the gun rights advocacy groups would get nationally. Look how the billions that the GOP's big guns like the Koch's and Adelson's brought to bear in the last election won them very little in return.
If the Democrats don't play this right, we might not see another Democrat win the White House in 2016 to put more SC justices in place.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Hillary45 already has won 2016.
The NRA is toast. Bloomberg is financing the opposition and he has more money than the NRA and Sheldon A. put together.
Let alone the millions of people out there that donate too.
CTyankee
(63,912 posts)Mister Ed
(5,940 posts)I thought I'd read that those first ten amendments, i.e. the Bill of Rights, are not subject to repeal. But I have only a hazy, ninth-grade-civics-class understanding of Constitutional law.
Could those with a better understanding of the law weigh in and inform me on this?
Thanks,
Mr. Ed
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)Recursion
(56,582 posts)Just like any other part of the Constitution.
Angleae
(4,487 posts)You need 38 state legislatures to do so.
sellitman
(11,607 posts)I think it should be implemented as written.
"Well Regulated"
Very,
Quantess
(27,630 posts)Good luck passing even the slightest amount of gun control, actually.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Not repealing.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)What you need is a high court that actually interprets the law like it is supposed to instead of making up shit like it did in 2008 with regard to the Second Amendment.
The Roberts court completely violated decades of precedent while making up shit about an individual's "right" to own a gun.
Response to duffyduff (Reply #34)
davidn3600 This message was self-deleted by its author.
jody
(26,624 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)It is funny as the gunnies never before thought any other than the 2nd mattered.
now they are running toward another
I run toward the woman's privacy issue.
Women are constitutionally allowed to have an abortion, yet it has been parsed to almost never occurring.
Let's do the same and make gun sales almost impossible especially in red states like Kansas.
And no gun shows.
And make it so infrequent that it is next to impossible.
Just like the same folks did to abortions.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)graham4anything
(11,464 posts)friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)BTW, doing a site search with the terms "Fourteenth Amendment" and "gun control"
will return 5000+ results...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117254430#post11
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=53326
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=1685
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=7353
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117212744#post25
http://www.democraticunderground.com/117212744#post59
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=7360
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)you guys say count
the 14th is past the first 10
they come in handy though, don';t they?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)jody
(26,624 posts)Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Scalia's decision was completely ridiculous. His entire argument revolves around ignoring the first 13 words of the second amendment and inventing a self-defense inferrence which Madison specifically rejected. What's truly comical about it is that Scalia pretends to be an originalist who interprets the plain meaning of the Constitution and constantly whines about "activist judges", yet the only way he can get to his decision is by rejecting the plain language meaning of the 2A in favor of an inferred meaning which is historically inaccurate. It's judicial activism at its finest.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)I think there's a bit of protesting-too-much that this is some crazy, wackadoo view that Heller came up with out of nowhere. Obama's actual quote was, "if you ask me, that looks like an individual right".
samsingh
(17,599 posts)and not parsed to sell guns
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)With the rest of us, we are hoping the sane consensus will grow to ban assault weapons and large clips, and maybe do something about tracking guns to keep them out of the hands of persons who are mentally incompetent and unable to handle the responsibility.
Repeal the second amendment? Sure. That's gonna happen. Maybe they'll ban cars next.
MightyMopar
(735 posts)"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment
laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind
as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times
We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution
Berserker
(3,419 posts)And welcome to DU.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)For about 200 years, the Supreme Court had NEVER recognized an individual right to own a firearm. It wasn't until 2008 and Columbia v. Heller (with Scalia writing the majority 5-4 decision) that the court ever did so.
So what we need is some new Supreme Court Justices. Might be easier that amending the constitution.
Jenoch
(7,720 posts)In order to amend the constitution, the amendment needs a 2/3 vote in both the senate and house before being sent to the various state legislative bodies. If by some miracle that happened, then 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. It would be more prudent to get control of the nutjobs with guns in another manner.
TransitJohn
(6,932 posts)n/t
Shrek
(3,981 posts)Repealing the second amendment would have a limited effect.