Quote from: Possum on November 17, 2020, 04:08:58 AM
Good question, here is a court case but it involves non-violent misdemeanors where gun rights were restored. Personally, I have always been of the opinion that if a person if too violent to be trusted with a gun, why are they free to walk in society?  https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-guns-trump-20170525-story.html

Exactly..............!

This is not my quote thought I agree with them 100%.........I copied and pasted this from someone who was debating convicted felons and the 2nd Amendment.

"All weapon laws are unconstitutional. You should be able to carry any weapon you want regardless of your status, UNLESS you're incarcerated. All of your rights should be restored the moment you finish your time and get released from jail. If your crime is bad enough, your sentence should be longer."

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 11:39:53 AM
I have been thinking recently about the debate regarding the wording of the 2nd Amendment. While to me, and I am sure many of you on this forum, the wording is not all the unclear especially when taken in the context of the rest of the document and history that has not prevented people from debating what it means.

The main question I am asking is that if there were a way to reword the 2nd Amendment to ensure that all those who read it would know for a certainty that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. I would like to know if anyone else has thought about this and if they have any suggestions about what that rewording would look like. I have put the original text below as well as what I would potentially think we be a more clear and concise version of it.

Original:
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.

My Proposal:
The individual, inalienable, and natural right of all persons to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they shall see fit shall never be denied, restricted, or limited by the government of the United States, the Several States, or any political body therein for any reason.

I think the original language is very clear that the Federal Government was not allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

That was a power strictly left to the States, who could, Constitutionally, create restrictions on that Right.

From my understanding, the 14th Amendment, and subsequent court cases, may have taken that ability away from the States, and even they, under current interpretation, cannot infringe on that Right.

I'm not legal expert, though. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right.

Quote from: ModelCitizen on November 22, 2020, 03:40:14 PM
I think the original language is very clear that the Federal Government was not allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

That was a power strictly left to the States, who could, Constitutionally, create restrictions on that Right.

From my understanding, the 14th Amendment, and subsequent court cases, may have taken that ability away from the States, and even they, under current interpretation, cannot infringe on that Right.

I'm not legal expert, though. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right.

There is no power to be had by the states in regards to the 2A....the constitution says so, and we even created a .gov with the specific charter to defend the right....

Quote from: Owebo on November 22, 2020, 03:56:22 PM
There is no power to be had by the states in regards to the 2A....the constitution says so, and we even created a .gov with the specific charter to defend the right....

Sheriff would agree!!!

https://cspoa.org/sop/

Quote from: ModelCitizen on November 22, 2020, 03:40:14 PM
I think the original language is very clear that the Federal Government was not allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

That was a power strictly left to the States, who could, Constitutionally, create restrictions on that Right.

From my understanding, the 14th Amendment, and subsequent court cases, may have taken that ability away from the States, and even they, under current interpretation, cannot infringe on that Right.

I'm not legal expert, though. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm right.

It wasn't until the 14th was passed that the S.C would take up a case involving gun rights and the States. And even then they did not handle a case until 1920's. Past courts have been reluctant to take these cases on, hopefully this will change. Here's a short article  https://www.livescience.com/26252-milestones-gun-control-history.html

QuoteOriginal:
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.

My Proposal:
The individual, inalienable, and natural right of all persons to keep and bear arms for whatever purpose they shall see fit shall never be denied, restricted, or limited by the government of the United States, the Several States, or any political body therein for any reason.

Your proposal sounds nice, it's just a bit too complicated for the kids to understand. Most don't even know what's in the constitution.  I like it just the way it is.  What we use it for is no one's business anyway.  I may just like to shoot.  Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.

Quote from: Trisha007 on January 21, 2021, 06:03:42 PM
Your proposal sounds nice, it's just a bit too complicated for the kids to understand. Most don't even know what's in the constitution.  I like it just the way it is.  What we use it for is no one's business anyway.  I may just like to shoot.  Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.

Totally agree!


Trish, I see you're still having issues with the quote thingy, so I thought I'd give you a hand.
When you look at a post, look at the upper right  corner of the post you're reading, you'll see QUOTE, click that, then when it opens, click below the word quote, click your cursor down one line below the word quote, or if you already see it flashing to the right of the word, hit your enter key one time to make room for you comment.
That's it.

If you want to parse a post, then: Look at the icons above, 4th from the Right, you'll see this.
Highlight the paragraph you want to quote and hit the quote icon, and continue as necessary. I think Walks wrote this out in help if you need more, or just ask.

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 11:39:53 AMI have been thinking recently about the debate regarding the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

I think the debate is over.  Sure, there are still people on message boards throwing around "militia right" or "state's right" for the troll effect, but for all intents and purposes, the real legal debate has come down on the individual right. 

The Heller dissenters all agreed that the question is no longer, does the 2ndA protect a collective or individual right; they all agreed the 2ndA protects an individual right. 

But, as Stevens put it, "a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right".  Where we still stand to lose the right is in leftists going on a "scope hunt" . . .

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 11:39:53 AMThe main question I am asking is that if there were a way to reword the 2nd Amendment to ensure that all those who read it would know for a certainty that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

What we (constitutionalist conservatives) need to do is keep the foundational principles as the focus of our arguments.  The right to arms is not given, granted, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment and to propose that we need to alter the words of the current Amendment to give the right to us more gooder, is a sure way of surrendering the right. 

One couldn't propose a more dangerous to liberty idea than trying to now define and delineate the right in what we hope is a short, easy to understand form.  Never underestimate the ability of leftists to twist and reframe and redefine . . . If we concede that the right flows from the 2nd Amendment, we sign the RKBA's death warrant.

Quote from: Centinel on November 11, 2020, 11:39:53 AMI would like to know if anyone else has thought about this

Yes, the Federalists back in 1787-1790 which is why they argued vehemently against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.  They believed adding a bill of rights was dangerous and absurd because the full breadth of our rights could not be summarized in a few words and our rights were so numerous they could never be listed.  They knew that any words used would be misconstructed and used to violate our rights by men wanting to usurp.  They believed it absurd to declare that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to act against our rights.

Quote from: Abatis on February 04, 2021, 05:37:29 PM
I think the debate is over.  Sure, there are still people on message boards throwing around "militia right" or "state's right" for the troll effect, but for all intents and purposes, the real legal debate has come down on the individual right. 

The Heller dissenters all agreed that the question is no longer, does the 2ndA protect a collective or individual right; they all agreed the 2ndA protects an individual right. 

But, as Stevens put it, "a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right".  Where we still stand to lose the right is in leftists going on a "scope hunt" . . .

What we (constitutionalist conservatives) need to do is keep the foundational principles as the focus of our arguments.  The right to arms is not given, granted, created or otherwise established by the 2nd Amendment and to propose that we need to alter the words of the current Amendment to give the right to us more gooder, is a sure way of surrendering the right. 

One couldn't propose a more dangerous to liberty idea than trying to now define and delineate the right in what we hope is a short, easy to understand form.  Never underestimate the ability of leftists to twist and reframe and redefine . . . If we concede that the right flows from the 2nd Amendment, we sign the RKBA's death warrant.

Yes, the Federalists back in 1787-1790 which is why they argued vehemently against adding a bill of rights to the Constitution.  They believed adding a bill of rights was dangerous and absurd because the full breadth of our rights could not be summarized in a few words and our rights were so numerous they could never be listed.  They knew that any words used would be misconstructed and used to violate our rights by men wanting to usurp.  They believed it absurd to declare that things shall not be done when no power was ever granted to act against our rights.

Thank you for your input.  ]

Welcome to CPF. 

Bernie said health care is a right and that it should be free.
I said if that's true, then why isn't govt buying me guns?

A free person defending personal liberty makes the difference between Lexington and Concord & Tienamen square.  Ownership of a weapon was often used to differentiate a free man from a slave.

Quote from: Solar on November 11, 2020, 01:09:43 PM
The 2nd does not rewording. What we need is to teach our history so everyone understands it clearly.

Agreed! To me there absolutely no ambiguity and its language is clear and concise. What it says in absolutey clear language is that each and every gun law in this nation be it federal, state or local is clearly unconstirutional and illegal. Futermore anyone attempting to enforce such laws are in direct conflict with their oath of office and as such should be removed from the office they hold without delay.

The major defect of the Constitution is that no one ever thought we would have a court system that became so powerful. No court in history has the power the Federal Courts do.

Their interference and stupidity has all but destroyed what was intended.

Now of course the other parts of the problem is a congress that has abrogated so much of its initial power to the executive branch and the courts.


If I was to write it now this is how I would word it:

The US Congress shall make no laws; the Federal courts will make no judgements; The Executive Branch shall have no power; there will be no interference by the Federal government in any way with the right of the people to bear arms.

Quote from: winterset on March 16, 2021, 05:40:05 PM
The major defect of the Constitution is that no one ever thought we would have a court system that became so powerful. No court in history has the power the Federal Courts do.

Their interference and stupidity has all but destroyed what was intended.

Now of course the other parts of the problem is a congress that has abrogated so much of its initial power to the executive branch and the courts.


If I was to write it now this is how I would word it:

The US Congress shall make no laws; the Federal courts will make no judgements; The Executive Branch shall have no power; there will be no interference by the Federal government in any way with the right of the people to bear arms.

All that's necessary is to enforce what we already have. The wording of the second is a undantly clear enough and the supremicy clause does the rest.
All that's lacking here is a population with balls enough to hold their government accountable.

Quote from: winterset on March 16, 2021, 05:40:05 PM
The major defect of the Constitution is that no one ever thought we would have a court system that became so powerful. No court in history has the power the Federal Courts do.

Their interference and stupidity has all but destroyed what was intended.

Now of course the other parts of the problem is a congress that has abrogated so much of its initial power to the executive branch and the courts.


If I was to write it now this is how I would word it:

The US Congress shall make no laws; the Federal courts will make no judgements; The Executive Branch shall have no power; there will be no interference by the Federal government in any way with the right of the people to bear arms.

Nailed it! Weak kneed congress critters have not carried out their responsibility.