Abolish the Second Amendment?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

They might be "just the first 10 Amendments", but the Founding Fathers, James Madison in particular, saw fit to coin them as "The Bill of Rights".

I agree that Amending the Constitution to nullify the 2d Amendment is not going to happen. The Founding Fathers delibertly made the Constitution extremely difficult to Amend so that it would not bend to the petty whims of the moment.

Other Country's Constitutions seem to be subject to change to fit the political climate of the moment. In truth, these "Constitutions" aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Some people refer to the provisions of the "Bill of Rights" as "the Constitution" when discussing them, but actually they were not part of "THE CONSTITUTION" and it might be problematic if that were the case to repeal any of the original Bill of Rights under any subsequent provisions, amended or otherwise.

Strangely enough the SCOTUS would have to made that determination.

States change their Constitutions to fit political climate changes and they often have a lot of them. Texas is a good example. That was because of Reconstruction, so it may be more of a "Southern" thing. Which brings up an "interesting" concept.

Eliminating the 2nd amendment doesn't eliminate similar provisions in State Constitutions protecting possession of firearms. Texas Article I ("The Bill of Rights")

Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS; REGULATION OF WEARING OF ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

[garhkal]

IMO if its a federal level thing (2nd amendment) NO state law should be allowed to abridge it.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by garhkal

IMO if its a federal level thing (2nd amendment) NO state law should be allowed to abridge it.

If the Federal Second Amendment is repealed that means nothing in so far as the State Constitution is concerned. And if you doubt that result go back and look at the original Brady Act that mandated local Sheriffs to conduct background checks. In Texas the Sheriff is a Constitutionally established elected position and the Feds can't tell him TO DO shit so long as the SHIT HE DOES doesn't VIOLATE A CIVIL RIGHT protected by the Federal Constitution. The Texas sheriff's almost to the county said, "fuck you" ( in so many words)! The Federal law doesn't make it mandatory.

It came up again during the aftermath of Katrina when a FEMA employee announced he was going to confiscated the parish fuel held by a parish sheriff (who is God in Louisiana) and the sheriff dispatched a pickup full of armed citizens to protect it. No fuel was taken. No shots were fired.

But as someone pointed out: The 2nd amendment will not be repealed.

[AugustWest23]

How do you differentiate between rights and morals?

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

If the Federal Second Amendment is repealed that means nothing in so far as the State Constitution is concerned..

WHile true if a State right is there and the fed one goes, the state right is still present. BUT i am saying if the Fed law says X, then the state law shouldn't be saying B..

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by garhkal

WHile true if a State right is there and the fed one goes, the state right is still present. BUT i am saying if the Fed law says X, then the state law shouldn't be saying B..

But that's not the law.

Which is why it is imperative when citing Federal constitutional rights to also cite the similar State constitutional rights when litigating in a state court ... and even in Federal courts, because the Federal courts can interpret state law as it pertains to the litigation before the Federal Court.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The States can provide more RIGHTS than the Federal Government.

As the litigation for the legalization by the States for use of (unmentionables on Eccie) start cranking up and finally reach the SCOTUS you will see how the "conflicts" with Federal laws are "reconciled"!

(BTW: It's been litigated before on that topic when the Feds attempted to control possessing, buying, selling, transporting, and importing into this country with a "tax" based on weight. So there is case law interpretation on "conflicts" within a specific subject matter that generates controversies.)

You're apparently referring to "pre-emption" policies and law. The possession and carrying of firearms is not an activity "exclusively" within the realm of the Federal Government, and it has NEVER BEEN.

[garhkal]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

You're apparently referring to "pre-emption" policies and law. The possession and carrying of firearms is not an activity "exclusively" within the realm of the Federal Government, and it has NEVER BEEN.

IMO it SHOULD be since the 2nd amendment states specifically "NO law shall be made to abridge"..

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

Not sure if this is a left or right thing.

If we start changing The Bill of Rights, it could easily affect Conservative and Liberals alike.

Well that's a no brainer. One major change that may even change your life for good is being victim of a violent crime. One that comes to mind is Home Invasion. Expect that to sky rocket if the 2nd Amendment is abolished or in anyway altered.

Jim

[winn dixie]

A simple fact..... Our founding fathers wanted to make the second amendment the first!!

Let us never forget that the 2cd amendment protects all the others!!!!!!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by winn dixie

A simple fact..... Our founding fathers wanted to make the second amendment the first!!

Let us never forget that the 2cd amendment protects all the others!!!!!!

But in the Worldly Affairs of Mankind historically it would be more logical for the 2nd Amendment to follow the 1st, just like the 5th Amendment logically should follow the "Freedom of Speech."

Some folks who exercise "Free Speech" too much probably need a firearm to protect themselves and afterwards be reminded that they do NOT HAVE TO SPEAK but can refrain from doing so with less risk to life and liberty.

[garhkal]

However, the 1st and 2nd are the two most GONE AFTER amendments by the liberals.. Wanting to define everything THEY feel should be banned as hate speech, banning conservative speakers, even whining that Free speech IS hate speech and the like..