Top Constitutional Lawyers Explain What the Second Amendment Really Says About Gun Control

[billh58]

In the wake of the shooting in San Bernardino, California, prominent conservative politicians have again squashed momentum to step up gun regulation, using the Second Amendment to make their case for maintaining the status quo.

The day after the shooting, Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz predicted that the shootings would lead to renewed calls for gun control.

-Snip-

This kind of absolutism on gun laws is nothing new. Conservatives have spent years making the case that any form of increased gun control is an affront to Americans' constitutional rights as provided by the Second Amendment.

-Snip-

"The largest misconception is that the Second Amendment justifies — or ever has justified — our nation's abysmal record in protecting innocent people from avoidable gun violence," Tribe told Mic. "The Second Amendment and the Constitution as a whole are abused by those who treat them as a sick suicide pact."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/top-constitutional-lawyers-explain-second-193052409.html?ref=gs

The above is just a brief synopsis, but the entire article is worth a read. Second Amendment absolutists, spurred on by ALEC/NRA/ILA are guilty of outright murder by blocking needed legislation to curtail gun violence in this country. They hide behind a false premise that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct and inviolable. It is neither.

[mikehiggins]

1. Of course the Second Amendment is not sacrosanct. The method of changing or eliminating it entirely

is spelled out in the Constitution itself.

Problem is, despite all of the horrific violence against boys and girls and men and women the national will to take on the process is missing.

Attempts to work-around the language of the Amendment are more or less failures. The only way to "reform" it is to eliminate it entirely.

Not even close to likely.

[billh58]

2. Actually, if you read the article,

these top Constitutional attorneys state that the Second Amendment as written does not mean what the absolutists say it means. Gun control advocates have always known that, and are calling for sensible, and legal, reforms which will protect our citizens -- especially children -- from gun violence.

Background checks for ALL gun purchases, a national registry of guns, limits on types of guns and ammunition, and legislated responsibility for the safe-keeping of lethal weapons -- these are some of the needed measures being proposed by gun control proponents. According to the legal experts, none of these proposals violate the Constitution.

Contrary to the gun nut clamor, the "national will" is evolving towards sanity.

[Doctor_J]

7. Hopefully one of these scholars or someone like minded will make it to the scotus

[billh58]

8. Can I get

an amen...!

[safeinOhio]

3. We are only 1 or 2 votes

On the SC to returning to the "community" view or the right "of the people" of the Second. That was the view for about 200 years of the Federal courts.

[catnhatnh]

5. This thing is just poorly written

"a bill to regulate high-capacity ammunition" I rest my case...

[billh58]

6. Says the Second Amendment absolutist

with his transparency page showing. I rest my case...

[Skittles]

9. needs to be re-written so even stupid people can understand

[awoke_in_2003]

10. Whenever you make anything idiot proof...

better idiots come along.

[jmg257]

11. Its hard to get away from this issue - that the 2nd's Militia purposes is obsolete,

since the constitutional 'we, the people' are no longer the well-regulated militia. The 2nd was a protection from standing armies, a matter we people clearly no longer worry about (as our standing armies are huge).

It is also hard to point to the Miller decision: "The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." and then next state "I believe military-style assault weapons will never be protected by the court in the name of the Second Amendment."

Either the 2nd protects militia-grade weapons, or it doesn't. (leaving out the whole "personal use/self-protection" notion).


Anyway, Madison knew public opinion mattered more then any restrictions put on paper:
"The restrictions however strongly marked on paper will never be regarded when opposed to the decided sense of the public; and after repeated violations in extraordinary cases, they will lose even their ordinary efficacy. ... Should an army in time of peace be gradually established in our neighbourhood by Britn: or Spain, declarations on paper would have as little effect in preventing a standing force for the public safety. The best security agst. these evils is to remove the pretext for them"


Since the primary reasons for the 2nd has changed in importance, and practice, it should be up to the people to decide how to treat its restrictions.