Second Amendment And a Call For Constitutional Convention?

[Midwest]

Second Amendment And a Call For Constitutional Convention?

I know we don't do threads about anything except the laws regarding firearms in this section. And and I am well aware that don't do "what if" speculation threads. I get that.

There is an important question that needs to be asked. What would happen to the Second Amendment if there was a Constitutional Convention?

I am not talking about some 'what if' hypothetical question. This question is an important one to ask because right now in Indianapolis Indiana (dubbed the 'Mount Vernon Assembly') ....There are "About 100 lawmakers from some 30 states are meeting at the Indiana Statehouse for discussions about how to call the first constitutional convention since the nation's founding."


http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/Constitutional-convention-backers-meet-in-Indiana/26456338

Since there is an preliminary meeting to discuss a Constitutional Convention and if there are enough states to agree to a Con-Con. Would our Second amendment rights be in jeopardy if they went ahead and had a Constitutional Convention and the eliminated the second amendment in the new Constitution? This is NOT getting a lot of airplay in the Mainstream media.

1. Should we keep an close eye on this?

2. Ignore it?

3. Alert the pro-gun community to what is going on?

4. Could our gun rights be done away with the adoption of a new constitution?

5. If this is an issue that needs to be looked at, what can we do as a community to deal with it?

Please, if this needs to be locked for being off topic or too hypothetical. Could the mod at least address these questions?

Thanks

.

 

[Sam1911]

1. Should we keep an close eye on this?

Not really. Political posturing. By what authority do these "100 lawmakers" claim to be able to hold a legitimate Con-Con, and how in the world would they enforce it?

2. Ignore it?

Eh, might be worthy of taking note of the names of the players.

3. Alert the pro-gun community to what is going on?

What ... actually ... IS going on? Some folks talking. But do any of the talkers have any power whatsoever?

4. Could our gun rights be done away with the adoption of a new constitution?

Based on the precedent set by the original Constitutional Convention, sure. ANYTHING could come out of that. It's literally throwing the whole system of government into a blender and hoping that just the bits and pieces that you (and he, and him, and that guy over there, and those folks, and every other participant) want will be plucked from the shreds and assembled into a cohesive new government functional enough to tie its own shoes, and that will sustain the inevitable resultant coups, military juntas, and usurpers.

5. If this is an issue that needs to be looked at, what can we do as a community to deal with it?

Probably nothing. If any of your local lawmakers are part of the group toying with this you could call them.

 

[Midwest]

Thanks for the answers

 

[Art Eatman]

Given the percentage of Big Nanny Statists in government today, a Con-Con would likely create something like that of the Eurozone: A "Bill of Privileges" where bureaucrats would have the power to suspend what we see as actual rights.

 

[Midwest]

Given the percentage of Big Nanny Statists in government today, a Con-Con would likely create something like that of the Eurozone: A "Bill of Privileges" where bureaucrats would have the power to suspend what we see as actual rights.

So under that process, DiFi and friends could just 'decide' to ban all firearms owned by civilians. And all firearms must be turned in to the government within 30 days or face 10 years in jail. And then it would be a done deal...just like that...

.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, kind of. The thing is, those that would have to attend and participate in a Con-Con would not just be the libertarians and conservatives. That's who's talking about it right now, but why would anyone expect that the approximately one half of the country who fall more into the Progressive big government camp would sit down and shut up while the right wing camp enacted a new government that completely decimated all the things that half the country really likes?

In other words, our side really venerates almost all of the original Founding Fathers. But "our side" now says the government they build isn't working right any more. So we're going to start again and build a new one. But now "WE" includes not just "our side" (hopefully reflective of those founding fathers) but all of the people who are currently making it NOT what we want.

If "we the people" really wanted a small government that stayed out of people's hair and did the minimum required for safety and the perpetuation of our union, they could vote for that RIGHT NOW. But they don't. So why are they going to send representatives to a constitutional convention who don't represent those entitlement and big brother goals they hold dear?

 

[natman]

Second Amendment And a Call For Constitutional Convention?

1. Should we keep an close eye on this?

2. Ignore it?

3. Alert the pro-gun community to what is going on?

4. Could our gun rights be done away with the adoption of a new constitution?

5. If this is an issue that needs to be looked at, what can we do as a community to deal with it?

1) Not quite yet. In order to pass a constitutional amendment it has to go through a two step process:

First it has to be formally proposed, by either a 2/3 vote in BOTH houses of congress or a Constitutional Convention (CC) proposed by the legislatures of 2/3 of the state legislatures. (34 states)

The Constitutional amendment process is deliberately designed to be difficult.

If proposed, the potential amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38 states).

2) I wouldn't ignore it, but I wouldn't get too worked up about it just yet.

3) I'd wait until there's something going on. Keep an eye on it in the meantime.

4) Yes. If - and I repeat if - a constitutional convention did take place all bets are off. They could rewrite anything in the constitution. Which is probably why it's never happened in US history; Congress would be afraid of what might come out of one and would be very reluctant to turn control of that much power over to the conventioneers. They would very much prefer to pass a specific amendment while it's still under their control. The threat of a CC has been used in the past to pressure Congress to pass an amendment. Which is what I suspect is going on here; the Republicans are trying to force Congress to deal with the National Debt.

5) If a CC was proposed, it would be time to contact your federal and state representatives.

 

[denton]

In the past, it was not a Constitutional Convention that brought change, but the credible threat of one. That can, and has, prompted the federal government to defuse the situation through legislation.

At any rate, I would not worry much about such a convention. Anything they pass has to have very broad, strong support in order to be adopted. I think I can list 16 states in a hurry that would not support weakening 2A.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...our side really venerates almost all of the original Founding Fathers. But "our side" now says the government they build isn't working right any more. So we're going to start again and build a new one. But now "WE" includes not just "our side" (hopefully reflective of those founding fathers) but all of the people who are currently making it NOT what we want....

This is an important point that bears repeating and remembering.

A Constitutional Convention puts everything on the table, and it won't just be folks who share our personal freedom/fiscal responsibility/small government values who will be deciding what we end up with.

...If "we the people" really wanted a small government that stayed out of people's hair and did the minimum required for safety and the perpetuation of our union, they could vote for that RIGHT NOW...

It's a sad fact that too many folks who share our personal freedom/fiscal responsibility/small government values have become too soured on things. So they have been abandoning the playing field to allow others, with different values, control the game.

A Constitutional Convention won't fix that.

 

[AlexanderA]

The disturbing thing is that this Constitutional Convention idea is being pushed by small-government conservatives who see it as a way to enshrine a balanced budget and fiscal responsibility in the system. These people, generally, are natural allies of the right to keep and bear arms. However, once a Constitutional Convention is seated, all bets are off. The Convention could, and would, make all sorts of changes, including deleting the 2nd Amendment.

Some of the people espousing the idea say that any amendments proposed by such a convention would still be subject to ratification by 3/4 of the states, and therefore the opportunity for mischief is limited. But the new constitution could specify its own ratification process. For example, it could (reasonably) specify that it would come into force upon a majority vote in a referendum by the entire country (without regard to states).

The historical precedent for all this is, indeed, the original Constitutional Convention of 1787. Let's remember that it was originally called in order to propose "improvements" to the Articles of Confederation. It very quickly decided that a root-and-branch restructuring was necessary. And, of course, it set forth the procedure for ratification and entry into force.

 

[Sam1911]

Some of the people espousing the idea say that any amendments proposed by such a convention would still be subject to ratification by 3/4 of the states,

Which changes, were they at all desired by the people, could be voted for WITHOUT a constitutional convention.

Indeed, when someone calls for a con-con to fix what's wrong with the government, make it smaller, strip away 2nd Amendment infringements, increase (some) personal liberties, and so forth, what is really being said is, "half the country has been voting for things we don't like, and we're going to take that choice away from them."

Really, you're either asking them to come together with you to collectively vote away all the things they WANT and create a new government that's diametrically opposed to what they've spent their lives supporting -- OR -- you're rather baldly threatening to disenfranchise them and stage a hostile takeover in which their views will be ignored, trampled, and outlawed.

Sounds reasonable, right?

 

[AlexanderA]

Sam1911 wrote:

Which changes, were they at all desired by the people, could be voted for WITHOUT a constitutional convention.

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate: The other method, besides a constitutional convention, for proposing amendments is a 2/3 vote by both houses of Congress. The proponents of a convention are saying that Congress is self-serving and corrupt, and can't be trusted to propose the changes that they want. It's really an end-run around the "ossification" of the current system.

However, I agree that this is an extremely dangerous road to travel. We could end up with a completely different governmental system, including loss of gun rights.

 

[Sam1911]

Well, just to play Devil's Advocate: The other method, besides a constitutional convention, for proposing amendments is a 2/3 vote by both houses of Congress. The proponents of a convention are saying that Congress is self-serving and corrupt, and can't be trusted to propose the changes that they want. It's really an end-run around the "ossification" of the current system.

Right. Ok. But who then goes to a Con-Con, and who do they represent, and what makes them have the legitimacy equivalent to, or actually superior to that of Congress?

Even ossification and self-serving practices are things essentially voted for by the people who keep returning the same parasites to Washington. So the question essentially remains, why would "the people" want their representatives to fundamentally change our system of government, and strip away the pork, entitlements, intrusions, infringements, entanglements, etc., etc., if they won't make their representatives make those changes NOW?

In other words, the problems faced by we, the people, are brought upon us by WE, THE PEOPLE, and their (OUR!) wants and whims and demands.

Therefore, eviscerating the system of gimmies, and grants, and constructions, and overseers we have today requires FORCIBLY taking away from we, the people, the things we've spent the last 200 years asking for.

 

[Frank Ettin]

...It's really an end-run around the "ossification" of the current system...

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves ..."

We are "the system." If the system is ossified, it's because we are. We elect our representatives. We have the final say at the ballot box. If some of us aren't happy with how things are working it means we're failing to get enough people to go along with our values and beliefs. We're failing to inspire.

The Constitution does not bestow wisdom. It's up to the body politic to be wise.

If our side apparently lacks the savvy to operate within the existing political process to better further our interests and values, what makes us think that we will be able to successfully do so in that political process of a Constitutional Convention.

 

[Sol]

^ I don't like the fact the "We The People" (current) still eat the crappy decisions of "We The People" (past). Repealing a law, I'd imagine, is much more difficult than passing one.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I don't like the fact the "We The People" (current) still eat the crappy decisions of "We The People" (past). Repealing a law, I'd imagine, is much more difficult than passing one.

Welcome to real life. You don't have to like it, but you do have to live with it and deal with it; because nothing will change it.

 

[Sam1911]

^ I don't like the fact the "We The People" (current) still eat the crappy decisions of "We The People" (past). Repealing a law, I'd imagine, is much more difficult than passing one.

There's also the rather astounding conceit that there is some collection of representatives, thinkers, philosophers, and wise leaders alive today who would assemble a new government even a shade as robust and long-enduring as that which the founding fathers (who we venerate) did. If they exist, what the hell are they doing right now?

 

[JRH6856]

^ I don't like the fact the "We The People" (current) still eat the crappy decisions of "We The People" (past). Repealing a law, I'd imagine, is much more difficult than passing one.

Seems like most of we the people generally expect government to "do something". Any attempt at repealing existing laws is usually portrayed or viewed as an "undoing", not a "doing." So, yes, it is more difficult to repeal laws than to pass them, unless they were initially passed with provisions for mandatory expiration as with the AWB.

 

[JRH6856]

There's also the rather astounding conceit that there is some collection of representatives, thinkers, philosophers, and wise leaders alive today who would assemble a new government even a shade as robust and long-enduring as that which the founding fathers (who we venerate) did. If they exist, what the hell are they doing right now?

Apparently they post a lot on the internet...

 

[RetiredUSNChief]

One of my brothers is quite the worry-wart about such matters, and a Constitutional Convention would be one of those "left wing schemes" he'd go on about.

This is my opinion, based on my novice observations of how our political system tends to work across the federal, state, and local governments:

Way back in the late 1780's this newly emerging nation had quite the difficulty in hammering out a Constitution and getting it ratified. And at that time, there were only 13 colonies/states involved. One of the things they had going for them was a common cause, having declared independence as a group and working towards maintaining a coherent system of government for themselves.

We have NONE of that going for us today...AND were're now a nation of 50 states that crosses 3,000 miles of country between two oceans, including two states geographically separated from the Lower 48. Trying to get all these different states, with all their own state agenda's to worry about, to coherently organize themselves into a productive venture into a new Constitutional Convention would make herding wild cats in a tornado look easy.

We're not France...we don't need to reinvent the Constitution every time somebody has a cow over something. (France has had 17 constitutions since 1781, 4 of them alone in an 18 year period during the 20th century).

The U. S. Constitution was written to endure. It was provided with a built in means to modify it if/when required. Rewriting such a document, especially in today's world, is not likely to produce ANYTHING so simply elegant, nor would it be likely to contain the very important rights and protections it currently has.

Not only do I seriously doubt it would ever happen, I would fight tooth-and-nail against it.

 

[RPRNY]

A Constitutional Convention at this time could do nothing but extreme harm to the Republic and our few remaining individual rights.

 

[pendennis]

Bear in mind, though, that a convention of two-thirds of the states may propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but it still requires that three-fourths of the states adopt those amendments. (Article V, United States Constitution).

There is a great deal of passion in the desire to have a convention of the states, but the actual workings and outputs from a convention are likely to be far less broad.

 

[JRH6856]

Bear in mind, though, that a convention of two-thirds of the states may propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution, but it still requires that three-fourths of the states adopt those amendments. (Article V, United States Constitution).

The requirements for amending the current Constittution would be moot if the Convention drafted a new Constitution with different ratification requirements. As noted, it would not be the first time as that is exactly how our current Constitution came to be.

 

[barnbwt]

A Constitutional Convention at this time could do nothing but extreme harm to the Republic and our few remaining individual rights.

Indeed. Monumentally bad idea; worse than nullification or secession. It's basically a peoples' revolution under the guise of how the Constitution was originally put together as a means of giving it more legitimacy than the standard practice of burning the capital/etc.

We don't need a new constitution since we have not found a failing of the current one. We just have not adhered to it diligently, and why would we think a new scrap of paper would change that? At least the rag we have now is neatly written (a new one would be a soul-less typed document with crudely-scrawled signatures, probably with spelling errors)

Like all peoples' revolutions it would end the same way; brutal anarchy in which old scores are settled until the people cry for a dictator.

TCB

 

[kwguy]

There's also the rather astounding conceit that there is some collection of representatives, thinkers, philosophers, and wise leaders alive today who would assemble a new government even a shade as robust and long-enduring as that which the founding fathers (who we venerate) did. If they exist, what the hell are they doing right now?

Very well said.