Thoughts on a complete rewrite...

[SharpDog]

I had so many things to say but those above have covered them WAAAY better than I ever could.

I do have one thing to add on a practical level.

In the current divisive political climate (which is representative of the historical divisiveness of our politics throughout our history), There is absolutely no way anything even 1% of this magnitude could ever pass.

This is notwithstanding any merits (if any) of the proposal.

I also seriously question the motivation of the OP to end debate ... what makes you think that could ever happen in our country ? See how politically divided we have always been.

 

[Derek Zeanah]

One comment about psychological evaluations -- a very wise college professor of mine once told me that there is "something" wrong with everybody, if you dig deeply enough. I'm convinced that the mental health aspect is the Achilles' Heel of gun rights. This is so subjective, and is so susceptible to abuse. If they can't find something wrong with you, they'll find something wrong with your spouse or other member of your household. Then, it's no guns for you!

Worse, imagine a situation where civil liability is applied to a psychologist to approved someone to own lethal weapons after that person went and used them inappropriately. Good luck finding someone to perform a proper psych eval after that...

 

[GEM]

I agree that no one would take on the evaluation without some liability coverage. The folks who did might just be inclined to turn you down or pass anyone - depending on their ideological viewpoint. Having a corps of governmental professionals - no thanks.

As I said, a turn down might ricochet through jobs, custody hearings - who knows what else. The delineation by gun type is again nonsensical. If you are too disturbed for a laser rifle, you are too disturbed for grandpa's musket.

In psych evals - we find the problem of people needing help not getting it because they fear such repercussions. It's common with problems in law enforcement and the military for people to avoid help as it will be known and influence their job ratings. One solution is to mandate interviews after a critical incident. Would a person contemplating a legal purchase, never go to mental health professional. Mandating evaluation and mandating report from someone who went to professional for other reasons and was found to be 'troubled' is an obvious legislative connection.

Proactive mental health diagnoses are a no go from a practical and from a civil liberties point of view.

To get a feel for a reporting system - check out:

https://safeact.ny.gov/mental-health-faq

 

[Odd Job]

The UK has been through this already and here's what happens:

1) There is public and media outcry that a legally-held firearm was used to commit an atrocity.

2) The police are first in line in the witch hunt. People want to know (in the case of the UK scenario) why the police issued a firearm license to this psycho.

3) The police say hold on mate, this guy had no criminal record when we issued the license and we are not qualified to evaluate him from a medical perspective.

4) The media and focus groups and Aunt Bessie down the road say this is not good enough, something MUST be done.

5) The police say fine, we will put that medical evaluation on the patient's GP. We will advise the applicant's GP that he has applied for a license. If the GP says the applicant has no relevant adverse medical conditions then we will issue the license, okay?

6) The people beam with delight at this new security.

7) The GPs start complaining about all this extra work they are doing which has nothing to do with the healthcare of this patient.

8) The GPs' solution is to charge for this request.

9) Police are now happy, GPs are happy, but Joe the Shooter is unhappy because his application is now delayed by the holdups in the GP appointments scheduling AND he is now out of pocket for this GP note.

That is how it would play out.
I know this because that is how it plays out here in the UK right now.

 

[namedpipes]

Being "reasonable" got us the gun control acts on 1934, 1968, 1994 and something like other 50,000 federal, state and local laws infringing on RKBA.

It's well past time to fight dirty. Use the same tactics against the grabbers that they use on us.

 

[GEM]

You don't have to fight dirty (whatever that is). What you need are elected legislatures and executives that understand and support the basic 2nd Amend. principles. Furthermore, they are willing to go to the mat for them. What you here is: I will defend the 2nd Amend.

You don't here any proactive legislation to undo past bans and restrictions coming to the fore lately. In fact, if such legislation is suggested, it is suppressed from coming forward or mention in major 'progun' blab fests. This is by our supposed allies in Congress and the White House. They will shut down the government or threaten to for some scheme of theirs. Would they do that for a progun bill. Fat chance.

I think we've pretty well shown that a complicated scheme that attempts to promote rights (with a good intention) has too many hidden gotchas in it. The same could be said for decisions such as Heller. Arguably it was wonderful or it suggested a way for the increasing state bans and infringements on everything but a Smith and Wesson Model 10 in Grandpa and Grandma's underwear drawer.

 

[Demi-human]

While I can appreciate the thought put into this proposal, I can't help but think of the time that could have been spent supporting some group or calling some politician, to plead our case or talking to pod eaters to get sense into them. (Maybe.)

I think that words have meaning and humans as a whole are not "smarter" than those that drafted the Bill of Rights. These words were chosen for a reason. It is to us to be sure that words are not bastardized. ("Heh. I guess it depends what the word 'is',is." Ring a bell?)


It doesn't matter how someone re-cuts my cake, it shouldn't be cut at all. Most of these tragedies happen because the laws we have now are not followed by those that are supposed to enforce them.
I am not up for more laws, nor sharing any more cake.

I am weak. If I had a hooky-pass from work and could sit at a computer, I for certain could sit at a bench, at the range.

I do understand where you are coming from @Godfather'sGun, I just think that it's not a good place to go...

Long live Constitutional Carry!

 

[Godfather'sGun]

Now we're getting somewhere! Thank you. As I said in my diatribe, I just want to get people active and thinking of ways to get us and the 2nd back to where it should be. The reason I went with and made it as extensive as I did was to address everything the antis are screaming at us. Of course a license is an infringement, but with only the small exception of a handful of constitutional carry states, we all already have some form of firearm related license in our wallets already. I am in Virginia, I have a license for CCW. I'm originally from NY and still have family there and they can't even purchase a handgun for home defense without a license, not to mention what is needed to actually carry out of the home there. I based my idea on a license system mainly on the assumption that the only way the antis would go for a large, sweeping proposal would be if it kept systems that already exist, however we need to make those systems work for us, because many if them definitely do not now. That said, there's no reason that a completely different approach can't be used. I know there are issues with my idea; that's why I said I want input from others, but I also said I don't really care if my idea ever goes anywhere, I really just want people thinking offensively about the 2nd.
I watched a video on Full30 this week where the poster said he had an NRA official ask him to ask his audience what we wanted them to do. Most responses where as expected; stop compromising, etc. I was the only one who told them to stop preaching to the choir. Get the real facts and studies out there to the general public, take out ads in mainstream media (mags, news, etc.) and when they refuse to run such ads tell them you'll go to their competitor and have them run an ad that shows them as untrustworthy due to their agendas and hiding the facts. News agencies take their perception of trust serious, even though it often is just a perception. Will they do it? will it even work if they try? I don't know, but I do know it's at least worth a try.
I just want us to get proactive instead of reactive and my proposal is just a spring board. If you hate my idea, just remember; the antis are scheming plans that make mine look like a walk in the park (or a fun day at the range).

 

[Frank Ettin]

....There is absolutely no way anything even 1% of this magnitude could ever pass.

This is notwithstanding any merits (if any) of the proposal....

There's nothing wrong with the text of the Second Amendment. The challenge to the effective promotion of the RKBA is not what the Second Amendment says. It's the spectrum of emotions, beliefs, hopes, fears, values, wants and needs too many of our neighbors, co-workers, people in our communities, folks we see at the mall, etc. In general, and for diverse reasons, and based on assortments of different values and life priorities, and fueled by varying beliefs, they don't like guns; they don't understand or accept the proposition that owning guns can be reasonable and relevant for honest, normal people in a 21st Century urban society; they don't understand why normal, honest folks in a 21st Century urban society want guns; they are afraid of people with guns or who would want to have a gun; and they don't accept the various premises upon which we have concluded that having guns is a good and useful thing.

And our neighbors, co-workers, people in our communities, folks we see at the mall, etc., support a well organized, financed, and politically and economically connected movement that opposes the RKBA.

This isn't about the text of the Second Amendment. It's about a conflict of cultures.

 

[CapnMac]

The 1st and 2nd are under attack and it’s my opinion that we must fight like no one has ever fought before

I will quibble a bit and suggest that the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th are under considerable stress as well.
That, honestly, the only "safe" Amendment is the 3rd.

 

[Hokkmike]

To put it simply, the OP does not have the experience here and/or credentials that qualify him to write a post this long and complicated that I would trust or take the time to read. It smells to me of "cut and past". Being his 1st post I am inclined to agree that he is a troll.

 

[old lady new shooter]

I'm creating that space though - stay tuned this week!)

Looking forward to that!

 

[hdwhit]

JeffG wrote:
The Constitution is a document to be read, not edited.

Well, if that's the case then all 27 of the amendments - which are nothing more than edits to the original document - have to be disposed of.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

This isn't about the text of the Second Amendment. It's about a conflict of cultures.

We have a winner. No more calls, please.

 

[D.B. Cooper]

Well, if that's the case then all 27 of the amendments - which are nothing more than edits to the original document - have to be disposed of.

On that note, there are a few I'd like to see go the way of the dodo: 16 and 21 come to mind.

 

[Spats McGee]

Now we're getting somewhere!

I'd be curious to know where you think we're getting.

Of course a license is an infringement, but with only the small exception of a handful of constitutional carry states, we all already have some form of firearm related license in our wallets already.

AFAIK, most states require a permit to carry. Possession is quite a different beast. It's early and I'm on my first cup of coffee, but I'll estimate that about a dozen states require permits for possession.

I based my idea on a license system mainly on the assumption that the only way the antis would go for a large, sweeping proposal would be if it kept systems that already exist, however we need to make those systems work for us, because many if them definitely do not now.

What makes you think gun owners will go for a large, sweeping proposal that requires everyone to have a license? Or that your system "works for us" as written?

 

[ilbob]

Just the length of the post suggests a complex and likely hard to make work proposal. Just how do you make all the states pass such a law? There are plenty of states that such a law has zero chance of passing.

We have continually given up rights of all types in an attempt to gain security. It has not worked.

Most violence that uses firearms is not from people who have passed background checks and have been issued some kind of permission by government to either buy, possess, and/or carry firearms. So why would you think that more restrictions on people who are by and large not the problem will serve any useful purpose?

 

[Godfather'sGun]

I'd be curious to know where you think we're getting.

AFAIK, most states require a permit to carry. Possession is quite a different beast. It's early and I'm on my first cup of coffee, but I'll estimate that about a dozen states require permits for possession.

What makes you think gun owners will go for a large, sweeping proposal that requires everyone to have a license? Or that your system "works for us" as written?

I only meant that we were finally having a real discussion other than just accusing me of being a troll.
I absolutely know that it is a permit to carry, that is still a form of license, is it not? I live in Va and have one; other than it being made of paper and not having my picture on it, it is just like my drivers license, successfully completed training requirement included.
What I mean by "works for us", is that I framed my plan to allow us nearly unrestricted access and ability to carry with as little fuss as possible (individually, obviously working my idea out and actually putting it place would be monumental). Essentially, when I started my "exercise" and came up with my plan I based it on the premise of a few requirements. They were, at their most basic, a system that took the laws currently on the books in at least some areas and reworked them in a way to give us the access we want (shall issue and repealing NFA for example) while not being so crazy that it would be completely dismissed by the anti and politicians. As is, of course it would never happen as I wrote it, but that's why I brought it here. I wanted ideas and suggestions from others that have more specific experience; i.e.; lawyers, those that have actually worked in D.C., etc. So far it's mostly been a lot of "Hell no" and I understand that, but I was hoping for something more along the lines of "X won't work, but if it's changed to Y it might." Barring that, at least Ideas for a completely different approach, but one that still provides the requirements of rolling back past infringements and solving the problems that the antis are screaming on a daily basis. There are even a few things they go on about that even most of us agree on but don't have a viable solution for that isn't more restriction. Let's find a viable solution, because if we don't, they will and it won't meet our needs and it will be crammed down our throat instead. I don't want the whole country relegated down to California standards. Sure, that's extreme, but it's what they want, in fact more, and compared to the original intent, it's already been restricted to the point to make our founders sick. Even if you ignore my plan completely, at least read the first and last section explaining why I did this exercise at all. I guess I could/should have explain(ed) the parameters I used for the plan, but I don't think it matters too much at this point. Let's just figure out a way solve the problems before we end up either Orwellian, or in a civil war, because we don't either.

 

[Spats McGee]

I only meant that we were finally having a real discussion other than just accusing me of being a troll.

Fair enough.

What I mean by "works for us", is that I framed my plan to allow us nearly unrestricted access and ability to carry with as little fuss as possible (individually, obviously working my idea out and actually putting it place would be monumental).

If we had the political oomph to implement your plan, I suspect that we'd have enough votes to simply repeal the NFA, and then we could just skip the whole "license for everything" idea.

Essentially, when I started my "exercise" and came up with my plan I based it on the premise of a few requirements. They were, at their most basic, a system that took the laws currently on the books in at least some areas and reworked them in a way to give us the access we want (shall issue and repealing NFA for example) while not being so crazy that it would be completely dismissed by the anti and politicians.

At the risk of being blunt . . . I believe that there's a fundamental flaw in your thinking, and that is that the antis: (1) will negotiate in good faith; and (2) have some point on the "citizen disarmament spectrum" at which they'll be satisfied. As the political winds shift, those groups change their names (e.g. from "Handgun Control, Inc." to "The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence"), manipulate statistics ("school shootings" include discharges near a school; "children" includes people up to age 23 (IIRC)), and have historically been pretty dishonest in their dealings with gun owners. Nonetheless, its leadership has, from time to time, slipped up and let the truth out, saying things like "an Assault Weapons ban is a good first step." (I don't have time to dig out citations to the statements above right now.) The bottom line is that their whole goal is total civilian disarmament, and to all appearances, they believe that the ends justify the means.

So far it's mostly been a lot of "Hell no" and I understand that, but I was hoping for something more along the lines of "X won't work, but if it's changed to Y it might." Barring that, at least Ideas for a completely different approach, but one that still provides the requirements of rolling back past infringements and solving the problems that the antis are screaming on a daily basis.

Well, I'm afraid I'm in the "Hell, no" camp. The "problems" that the antis are screaming about aren't the real problems. We might have a NICS reporting problem. We probably have a problem with lack of prosecution of straw purchases. We have a problem with lack of follow-through in some law enforcement circles. What we do not have is a problem with the ~100 million lawful gun owners getting into gunfights. If we did, we'd all know it.

I don't want the whole country relegated down to California standards.

That's exactly what you're inviting, though. My dinky little state has 4 representatives and 2 Senators. California has 53 Reps + 2 Senators. NY has 27 + 2. If you start tinkering with licensing on the federal level, you're asking those States to join in the fun on setting standards.

Let's just figure out a way solve the problems before we end up either Orwellian, or in a civil war, because we don't either.

I agree with you, in principle. I don't want a civil war any more than the next guy, and I certainly don't want an Orwellian society. That said, I don't see how sacrificing more of my rights, in exchange for the things you propose, particularly in light of the fact that I do not believe: (a) that the antis would agree to them; or (b) if they did, that they would hold up their end of the bargain.

 

[Godfather'sGun]

Spats,
Thank you for the concise reply, but I just want clarify a few things on my behalf:
I completely agree that the antis are often or always dishonest, conniving, and won't be happy until we are totally disarmed, but there are moderates that just don't know all the facts because of the screaming and many would likely sway to our side if they were educated on the facts. I have had first hand experience on changing several minds to our side, so I know it's possible.
Additionally, I know my plan adds restrictions to areas that are not of the Cali/NY etc. thinking, including my own state of Va., but it was just an exercise in addressing the antis main complaints with solutions that didn't ruin us, but again, just an idea that I ran with, a "what if." Basically; what if we were forced to have a license system, which would necessitate a database, how would it have to be set up to be livable? Of course there is no perfect solution to that question, but I wanted to explore the idea and get feedback. I didn't clarify that originally, which was a mistake, but I think we're past that anyway.
However the real questions remain; what do we do to save the 2nd now? What solutions can be proposed to address the problems we have; the excessive restrictions that are out there already, preventing the ones being shouted by the antis, and addressing the few actual problems that do exist (mental health, straw purchases, etc.)? The only two realistic ways we're going to reverse existing restrictions is either to find a solution that the public and politicians can agree to, or through a SCOTUS ruling. Preventing new restrictions is straightforward so I'll leave that aside for now. One aspect of my thought process in my plan was accomplishing the first by way of the third; reducing restrictions by finding solutions to the actual problems, even if they are few and far between, because without solving those few actual problems, the antis will just keep pushing for more restrictions that won't do a damn thing. Sure, many know that and don't care because it's part of their end game, but if we find a workable solution, we can force them to either support it, or show their true colors which would help bring more moderates to our side. Find a real and provable solution, take it to the public and show the facts and proof, and they're forced to "put up, or shut up." We don't need everyone, just a majority.

 

[JTHunter]

You don't have to fight dirty (whatever that is).

Maybe "dirty" is the wrong word/phrase. "Quid pro quo" or "tit for tat" comes to mind. Or maybe an "eye for an eye".

 

[entropy]

I agree that no one would take on the evaluation without some liability coverage. The folks who did might just be inclined to turn you down or pass anyone - depending on their ideological viewpoint. Having a corps of governmental professionals - no thanks.

As I said, a turn down might ricochet through jobs, custody hearings - who knows what else. The delineation by gun type is again nonsensical. If you are too disturbed for a laser rifle, you are too disturbed for grandpa's musket.

In psych evals - we find the problem of people needing help not getting it because they fear such repercussions. It's common with problems in law enforcement and the military for people to avoid help as it will be known and influence their job ratings. One solution is to mandate interviews after a critical incident. Would a person contemplating a legal purchase, never go to mental health professional. Mandating evaluation and mandating report from someone who went to professional for other reasons and was found to be 'troubled' is an obvious legislative connection.

Proactive mental health diagnoses are a no go from a practical and from a civil liberties point of view.

To get a feel for a reporting system - check out:

https://safeact.ny.gov/mental-health-faq

Then there is the fact that sociopaths can pass with flying colors.....

Godfather's Gun;
As you see in my sig line; I believe in simple, well worded laws. The problem with re-writing the 2nd, is that for the most part, it would interfere with the 9th and 10, as your proposal would.
I'd like to see something like this, but because of human nature, it will never happen:
Own what you want, but if you use it in the commission of a capital crime, the penalty is capital punishment.

Sadly, in this day and age, that would not be a deterrent for some.

 

[Jim Watson]

There is no way to assure that a law will not be amended or repealed. One Congress cannot bind the next, nor can it control a judicial interpretation that may even sound at odds with the language of the law or the recorded intent of the legislators.

So, what would be required is Amendment 2.1 "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this time we mean it." With included definitions of all terms.

 

[CapnMac]

There's a fundamental flaw in this.
For one, this is not a level playing field.
Logic and reason do not tip the field in our favor.
Neither will cobbling up more verbose ways to further put us in chains.
What we need is a return to basic principals.

 

[Spats McGee]

I completely agree that the antis are often or always dishonest, conniving, and won't be happy until we are totally disarmed, but there are moderates that just don't know all the facts because of the screaming and many would likely sway to our side if they were educated on the facts.

Why should I bargain with one known to dishonestly bargain with me? Someone I know won't be happy with the bargain and will seek to subvert it at the first opportunity. Why should I attempt any kind of "compromise" with a person like that? Especially when the "compromises" gain me nothing and sound more like protection schemes: ". . . . give me part of what you have, or I'll come back and take all of it . . ."

It sounds to me like the solution is education and enforcing the laws on the books, not looking for ways to appease the antis, to find gentles ways of slipping into my shackles.

We don't need everyone, just a majority.

Majorities don't cut the mustard in constitutional law. If we're talking about a fundamental individual right, it doesn't matter who has the majority because it's a constitutional right. If we're talking about amending the Constitution, that's a whole different process.

The way you've set this thing up . . . . . runs roughshod over several other constitutional provisions.

what if we were forced to have a license system, which would necessitate a database, how would it have to be set up to be livable?

What if we just said "hell, no?" What if we just decided that we, as gun owners, will not tolerate being registered in a gov't database any further than we already are?

What solutions can be proposed to address the problems we have; the excessive restrictions that are out there already, preventing the ones being shouted by the antis, and addressing the few actual problems that do exist (mental health, straw purchases, etc.)?

How about we start with "enforce the laws already on the books?" How about we start punishing offenders in accordance with law?