Something just occurred to me

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

Who thinks repealing the 2nd Amendment eliminates the right to keep and bear arms?

7 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes that would eliminate the right
	1 (14%)
	No the right would remain
	6 (86%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[GGJohn]

1. Even if, and that's a mighty big if, the 2A were repealed,

then it would just fall to the individual states to set their own firearms policies.

[Agnosticsherbet]

2. I would elminate any protections based on the 2nd amendment, but the ninth amenmdnet tends to make

me think that an argument for right to own a weapon for protection could be made.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It is my opinion that the 2nd amendment was about maintaining weapons for mutual defense in a citizen's militia at a time when we did not maintain a large national military. As such, I consider the 2nd amendment obsolete, much like the third amendment.

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.

Yes, I know people here won't agree with me. That is why it is called an opinion.

I don't agree with the interpretation courts since the 70's have given the 2nd amendment, but I don't favor eliminating it.

[Duckhunter935]

3. It would just go back to the states

many have the same type of thing in their constitutions.

[JackW]

4. Who knows?

Repealing the Second Amendment SHOULD not change anything respecting the personal use of guns, since that was not a topic of the amendment. But who knows what our courts might decide.

[S_B_Jackson]

5. The Supreme Court weighed in on this back in 1876 in US v. Cruikshank...

The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This 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; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes, to what is called, in The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was, perhaps, more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the Constituton of the United States.

There is no juris prudence since which would invalidate the view that the right to keep and bear arms is not dependent upon the 2nd Amendment nor even upon the US Constitution. It is an a priori condition, a right specifically enumerated in the 2nd Amendment which IS NOT being surrendered or limited in order to grant power to the US Government.

[gejohnston]

6. Cruikshank said the same about the 1A

and made the federal civil rights laws of that era unenforceable.
and has pretty much been over turned By (as far as guns go) by Heller and McDonald.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Cruikshank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago

[S_B_Jackson]

7. Neither Heller or McDonald "overturned"

Cruikshank, though, the SCOTUS promulgation of the incorporation doctrine under the auspices of the 14th Amendment does change the dynamic of the 2nd Amendment's restrictions applying ONLY to the federal government - they now apply equally against the states and all subordinate governmental entities.

It will be interesting to see what happens with the difference in interpretations between the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th district's rulings vs. those in the 7th, 9th, and 10th Circuits with regards to outlawing of open carry while at the same time greatly restricting concealed carry except to those of money, privilege, and position. Kamala Harris' decision to keep pursuing an appeal in Peruta v. San Diego County could make many pro-control folks very, very unhappy.