"Machine guns" and the 2nd Amendment

[hdwhit]

Tommygunn wrote:
I'm afraid that the liberals who disdain the second amendment will not be moved or impressed with this argument.

I doubt many conservatives who support the Second Amendment would be moved or impressed by their argument either. A crew-served multi-barrel piece of artillery is not analogous to an M-16.

I fail to see the desperate need to explain or justify the right. We don't feel the need to justify our right to Freedom of Speech or a need to explain why we choose to Worship what we do in the manner we choose to do it; the mere fact that we the people conferred the right upon ourselves and took it out of the hands of the government is all that is necessary.

 

[CapnMac]

It has been upheld as being constitutional.

Not sure about that, not in the sense of a ruling on constitutionality.

I do know that there was a court case on the "how" of it, as rather a lot of people then present held that the vote was tardy of the mandatory time limit, and the amendment ought be vacated. The court (or courts) did not find (IIRC) enough evidence to so rule. There was a strong sense of "we won on this, don't tip the apple cart acting against appealing the decision to higher courts.

What I believe is the current syllogism is that the "damaged" class is only manufacturers--who are free to make other things--that the People (the militia) are not "damaged" in that, in case of need, the Army would proide them with automatic weapons to need.

Most of us on "our" side will see this as a specious and frivolous argument. The environment of a court is a rarefied place where the rules can permit illogic to stand as logic. This is very much part of why the study of law and its pratice in a courtroom is a thing of rigor and careful, continuing, study. Sam Adams might disagree, and I haven't enough Greek to disagree with him.

 

[Sistema1927]

Computers and the Internet. Praise Bands and sound systems at church. Modern firearms.

Seems like the Founding Fathers didn't need to enumerate these items for us to have freedom of speech/the press, freedom of religion, or the freedom to keep and bear arms.

 

[Tommygunn]

http://thefederalist.com/2018/05/09/heres-supreme-court-already-repealed-second-amendment/

Some rather ... gloomy portends in that article. Thanks for the link.

 

[AlexanderA]

Some rather ... gloomy portends in that article. Thanks for the link.

The article is spot on. The Heller case was a limited victory in that it recognized an individual RKBA. Beyond that, however, it stood the 2nd Amendment on its head. There's enough in Scalia's dicta to uphold just about any restrictions on a practical basis. That case has to be revisited if the RKBA is to have any meaning.

 

[rb288]

What is missing in all this talk of "revoking" the second amendment is this......
1. Congress can NOT repeal the second amendment.
2. The supreme court can NOT repeal the second amendment.
3. ONLY the American people can make any changes to the Constitution by adding or repealing any amendment.
4. 2/3's of the population of each state, 3/4's of the states, AND 2/3's of both houses of congress must agree to make changes to the Constitution.
5. Repeal of the second amendment is NOT going to happen.
6. BTW, with all the discussion on what a "militia" means, think about this...who were the "militia" who met the British at Concord bridge; farmers, shop keepers, blacksmiths, all common citizens.
The founding fathers DID know, exactly, what they were talking about.

 

[AlexanderA]

2. The supreme court can NOT repeal the second amendment.

No, but it can "interpret" it to death. Under the Heller/McDonald cases (the last definitive pronouncements), the only thing that the 2A guarantees is the right to keep an ordinary handgun (a revolver?) loaded in your home for self defense. Even that can be required to be licensed.

4. 2/3's of the population of each state, 3/4's of the states, AND 2/3's of both houses of congress must agree to make changes to the Constitution.

Not exactly correct. Under Article V of the constitution (the amendment procedure), 2/3 of both houses of Congress must propose an amendment, which then must be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures (or by conventions in 3/4 of the states). Alternatively, 2/3 of the state legislatures may call for a constitutional convention to propose amendments. That's the wild card. Following the historical precedent of the original 1787 constitutional convention (which was called to propose amendments to the old Articles of Confederation), this convention could rewrite the entire constitution, and then provide for a completely new method of ratification, such as a nationwide popular vote. Under this scenario, it's very likely that the 2nd Amendment would be eliminated.