Gun Rights- Fighting And Winning

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by davidsog

False and misinformed. A Convention of States IAW Article V of the US Constitution is very specific in its instructions.

A convention is limited in scope to the issues the State's have passed requesting the convention for the purposes of constructing the language of the proposed amendment.

The amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articl...s_Constitution

You are confusing the ONE Constitutional Convention which drafted our Constitution ratified by the States with the necessary State adopting it on 12 June 1788 with the thirteen plus Convention of States we have had in our history.

AFAIK, there is no legal way to replace the entire Constitution of the United States.

This is also correct. What you're describing is what I call the "alternate amendment process." It makes more procedural sense to run an amendment through 2/3 of both houses then on to the state legislatures, so that's the only method we've ever tried.

[5whiskey]

This is a great conversation.

[sarcasm on]Yes, yes it is. Why it’s hard to believe that us fringe right gun enthusiasts, who demand that every 5 year old should have a gun, seems to have such nuanced understanding of the American legal system. It’s almost as if many gun owners aren’t the bubba hillbilly rednecks or mall ninjas whose only argument is “shall not be infringed” that we are portrayed as and really are. Why, next thing you know we will talk crazy stuff like it’s a freedom of speech to burn a flag or kneel during the national anthem, because we all know that the only constitutional amendment that really matters is the second. Heaven forbid we have rational conversations about public policy and the rule of law.[sarcasm off]

PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.

[pTac]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

[sarcasm on]Yes, yes it is. Why it’s hard to believe that us fringe right gun enthusiasts, who demand that every 5 year old should have a gun, seems to have such nuanced understanding of the American legal system. It’s almost as if many gun owners aren’t the bubba hillbilly rednecks or mall ninjas whose only argument is “shall not be infringed” that we are portrayed as and really are. Why, next thing you know we will talk crazy stuff like it’s a freedom of speech to burn a flag or kneel during the national anthem, because we all know that the only constitutional amendment that really matters is the second. Heaven forbid we have rational conversations about public policy and the rule of law.[sarcasm off]



PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.

No insult taken. I didn’t mean my comment as sarcasm. I really meant this was a great conversation. Lots of good back and forth on different perspectives of the intent of the BOR and whether it’s changeable or not. I like a good debate especially between like minded people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

[sarcasm on]Yes, yes it is. Why it’s hard to believe that us fringe right gun enthusiasts, who demand that every 5 year old should have a gun, seems to have such nuanced understanding of the American legal system. It’s almost as if many gun owners aren’t the bubba hillbilly rednecks or mall ninjas whose only argument is “shall not be infringed” that we are portrayed as and really are. Why, next thing you know we will talk crazy stuff like it’s a freedom of speech to burn a flag or kneel during the national anthem, because we all know that the only constitutional amendment that really matters is the second. Heaven forbid we have rational conversations about public policy and the rule of law.[sarcasm off]



PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.

5whiskey, I appreciate your humor, and I likewise resent the stereotype that all gun owners (and advocates of gun rights) are pickup-truck-drivin', Bible-thumpin', right-wing-votin' rednecks. No offense to rednecks (I love 'Skynyrd, after all), but it ain't necessarily so -- I mean, I have a master's degree, I don't subscribe to religion, and I drive German cars. I also happen to have a house full o' cool guns.

But here's the problem. Those stereotypes hold true more than they should, especially the part about only believing the Second Amendment applies. I've worked in some conservative environments (a shipyard and a nuclear-power plant), and these kinda values were the norm:

• The Bible and Christianity should be taught as fact in public schools.
• School children should be forced to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag.
• This is a Christian nation.
• Anti-war protesters should be arrested.
• Those who disrespect or desecrate the national flag (without regard to whose property the flag is) should be imprisoned.
• Pornography should be banned.
• The news media should be subject to prior restraint.
• Gun rights are absolute.
• Anyone who doesn't consent to a search by police "has something to hide."
• If you don't know or understand your legal rights, that's your damn problem.
• Protections against unwarranted searches and self-incrimination "only protect criminals."
• Those convicted of capital crimes should be summarily executed, as due process wastes time and money.

I am not exaggerating. These people are among us; go to the right place, and they're actually in the majority. (And I hang out with my share of left-wingers these days, people who think, for instance, that disclosure of one's tax returns is a matter of politics rather than privacy; this rant can easily go both ways.)

Call me crazy, but I embrace the entire Bill of Rights, plus the 14th Amendment, plus those rights sprinkled throughout the body of the Constitution (such as protections against bills of attainders or ex post facto legislation, the requirement of writs of habeas corpus, and the general theme of personal privacy). That said, people who claim to "uphold the Constitution" while casually cherry-picking its content are a very real segment of our population.

[PhotonGuy]

Where does it say, in the Constitution, in any of the amendments to the Constitution, or in any other federal law that the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) cannot be amended -- or even repealed?

The Constitution might not say that up front but if you know the purpose of the BOR than it would fall into place. The purpose of the BOR was not and is not to grant rights, rather its to draw a line that the government cannot cross because if it were to do so it would be infringing on rights that were granted not by the government but by a higher power. As I said in an earlier post it would be more accurate to call it the Bill Of Restrictions, since that's what it does, it places restrictions on the government. Since to amend or repeal any of the amendments in the BOR would obviously be an act of government, to do so the government would be crossing the line and going against the Constitution.

[davidsog]

This is also correct. What you're describing is what I call the "alternate amendment process." It makes more procedural sense to run an amendment through 2/3 of both houses then on to the state legislatures, so that's the only method we've ever tried.

You are correct in that is the "other" and most misunderstood method of amending the Constitution as well as proposing legislation to Congress on behalf of the people.

The 21st Amendment was enacted with this process repealing prohibition.

There has been over 40 conventions in the history of the United States most of them successful at achieving their goals.

What often seems to happen is that Congress wakes up when a Convention is called for and addresses the situation before the Convention has to complete its process.

The history of interstate conventions is not only long and rich, but a
source of useful precedent. The standard protocols have worked even in situations of
extreme political stress, as proved by the 1861 Washington Conference Convention.

Among the more than 40 conventions of states already held, only two were constitutional conventions: Philadelphia in 1787 and Montgomery in 1861. Several other assemblies have proposed constitutional amendments, but none of those was ever called a constitutional convention.

The Sherman Anti-Trust laws for example were a response to the 1889 St Louis Convention.

http://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-con...ions-final.pdf

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by davidsog

You are correct in that is the "other" and most misunderstood method of amending the Constitution as well as proposing legislation to Congress on behalf of the people.

The 21st Amendment was enacted with this process repealing prohibition.

Just to be clear, we're (mostly) talking about two different things, both of which are described in Article V:

1. A national convention for proposing amendments and sending them to the states for consideration.

2. State conventions (versus state legislatures) for ratifying amendments approved by Congress or by national convention.

No amendment has been passed on to the states by way of a national convention; all were instead first approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. It's more efficient to introduce an amendment in Congress first, simply because Congress meets and does business regularly, whereas a national convention would require all participating states to convene ad hoc and at the same time.

You're right, though, that the 21st was submitted to state-level conventions rather than legislatures, but it still took them the better part of a year to get all those meetings convened and get the amendment approved.

[davidsog]

still took them the better part of a year to get all those meetings convened and get the amendment approved.

Which is about the same as it takes to adopt in any other route if not slightly faster. Unless you want to talk about the 27th which took 202 years.....

No amendment has been passed on to the states by way of a national convention;

Correct.

Congress has always acted once the Convention was in place and before it could be completed.

Sort of "Oh Crap...we better do our job approach."

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by davidsog

Which is about the same as it takes to adopt in any other route if not slightly faster. Unless you want to talk about the 27th which took 202 years.....

I'm no expert on the 21st, and I'm not sure why they went the route of state conventions versus legislatures. As you point out, it didn't appear to save any significant time.

(Ima do some reading.)

[davidsog]

I'm no expert on the 21st, and I'm not sure why they went the route of state conventions versus legislatures. As you point out, it didn't appear to save any significant time.

Congress felt that too many state legislatures where beholden to "special interest" in this case Pro-Prohibition lobbyist.

The 18th Amendment was only passed after decades of lobbying by the temperance movement. In other words a small very vocal group had been allowed to hijack the will of the people.

A Convention of States can either be called for by a 3/4 of the State Legislatures passing a request for a convention which then Congress must honor within a specified timeline (90 days or 180 days...not sure which) or Congress can unilaterally call for and set a date for a Convention of States.

Either way, Congress calls for the Convention.

[Brownstone322]

That makes perfect sense — they were specificallybypassing the very legislatures that supported the 18th to begin with. I didn’t think of it that way, but repeal of a relatively recent amendment might naturally follow a different route from the original amendment.

And yeah, the requirement for state conventions is right there in the text of the 21st: "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution."

Shrewd political maneuvering.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

The Constitution might not say that up front but if you know the purpose of the BOR than it would fall into place. The purpose of the BOR was not and is not to grant rights, rather its to draw a line that the government cannot cross because if it were to do so it would be infringing on rights that were granted not by the government but by a higher power.

But I know the purpose of the BOR, and I don't dispute that the rights discussed in the BOR are not granted by it, but rather are recognized as preexisting rights. Nonetheless, the BOR, as a set of amendments to the Constitution, are part of the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it says what it says. Anything it does NOT say ... it doesn't say. And it doesn't say that the various amendments comprising the BOR can never be amended or repealed. Irrevocability does not "fall into place" without being stated. That's not how laws work.

If I'm wrong, please tell us exactly where in the Constitution it states that the first ten amendments can never be amended or repealed.

[davidsog]

If I'm wrong, please tell us exactly where in the Constitution it states that the first ten amendments can never be amended or repealed.

The right to bear arms was not granted by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd amendment simply directs that the Federal Government cannot infringe upon human rights including the right to self defense.

You cannot repeal something that was not granted by you in the first place.

[davidsog]

The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not to be found in the Second Amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

The right to bear arms was not granted by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

I just wrote exactly that in the post immediately above yours -- the post you responded to.

Originally Posted by Aguila Blanca

... I don't dispute that the rights discussed in the BOR are not granted by it, but rather are recognized as preexisting rights.

Repealing the Second Amendment would not repeal the moral existence of the right, but it would repeal the legal stipulation that the government shall not infringe that right. If the prohibition on governmental infringement is removed, how much does it matter whether or not the underlying right still exists ... somewhere, out there in the ether? Look how much the governments (federal and state) have infringed the RKBA even with the Second Amendment in place. Remove the Second Amendment, and it's Katie bar the door.

[PhotonGuy]

But I know the purpose of the BOR, and I don't dispute that the rights discussed in the BOR are not granted by it, but rather are recognized as preexisting rights.

Exactly. The rights were preexisting. The government did not grant them the government cannot take them away.

[Armed_Chicagoan]

The government certainly can take them away, and they have in most of the world and even in parts of the USA. The 2A is supposed to prevent the government from doing that, but creative judges have allowed them to do so and the SCOTUS is our last line of defense.

[USNRet93]

Originally Posted by 5whiskey

[sarcasm on]

PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.

Yup, I do
NRA needs to change it's message if they want to appeal to the people you mentioned in that last sentence, is what I said. I said LaPierre says some things that 'seem' extreme.
I mentioned them because they(and me) exist..is all. I know many, many who advocate for the 2A and are moderate in their political views.

Again, not binary, not zero sum..

[HiBC]

USN retd….In your own words,what is the mission of the NRA ?

The reason I ask is many people form illusions based on what a non-original source tells them.

That opinion is often formed from an echo chamber.IMO,more people might know what Media Matters,CNN,George Soros,the Brady Bunch,etc have to say about the NRA.

NRA needs to change it's message if they want to appeal to the people you mentioned in that last sentence

(Referring to other folks who have moderate views on other issues)


Other than perhaps peer pressure,expectations of others....Why or how does my support of the 2A RTKBA have any bearing on how I feel about Abortion,or Climate,or Immigration,or LGBT issues,etc?? Or you just "know" what I believe ?


The Leftist echo chamber packages deplorables as Racist ,Sexist ,Homophobic ,misogynistic .etc propaganda BS if you support the NRA,or the GOP,or the RTKBA,

Everybody knows that! Ask whats his name or whats her name on that network...

What insane garbage.Its classic labeling,stereotying,and hateful bigotry.

And nothing the NRA does with its message will make any difference to the haters who spread this platform of propaganda. The echo chamber created it,they use it for indoctrination.

----------------------------

The article 5 Convention of the States topic,I suggest Marc Levin has written the book "The Liberty Ammendments" on this topic.

It was forseen that the Fed Gov might become out of control,and a mechanism was necessary for the States to use to check the Fed Gov.

An example or two that have been discussed as Article 5 agenda items are term limits and a balanced budget amendment.

Please,this is NOT the time or place to argue either topic.Lets DON"T.

Congress is loathe to take ANY action that will reduce their power,longevity,or ability to spend money.IMO,Congress will never pas term limits or a balanced budget law...But Article 5 gives the States the power to pull it off,and if they do,its the law of the land and the Feds can't stop it.


IMO,its a brilliant feature of the Constitution.

[davidsog]

I just wrote exactly that in the post immediately above yours -- the post you responded to.

And? You contended that the BOR can be repealed or amended.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

The rub seems to be that in that same case, the SCOTUS appears to be of the opinion it applies only to the Federal Government. Unlike some of the other rights which the States are specified to protect the SCOTUS specifically address the 2nd Amendment as only be a limitation on the Federal Government.

The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

Which is why we have draconian state laws in places like New York, California, and New Jersey.

Outside of the fact the right to bear arms cannot be repealed, It is kind of a weak half measure ruling.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by davidsog

And? You contended that the BOR can be repealed or amended.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Where does the Supreme Court say that the Second Amendment cannot be amended or repealed? Certainly not in the case you cited in post #39. From the link you provided:

6. The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.

And, even in the face of this, the federal government has restricted (i.e. infringed) many aspects of the RKBA ... and the Supreme Court has not stepped in and said "Whoa!"

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by PhotonGuy

Exactly. The rights were preexisting. The government did not grant them the government cannot take them away.

The government cannot take them away?

I am required to have a permit to carry a handgun in my home state. I have permits from six different states and, even with SIX permission slips that the Second Amendment says I don't need, I can carry legally in only about 30 or 32 states. Within my own home state and my home town, although I have a state-issued permission slip, I cannot carry a (or even possess an unloaded) firearm on any town-owned property. Yet the Second Amendment says that my "right" to bear (carry) arms "shall not be infringed." My own state's constitution says it even more strongly, specifically mentioning that the right to bear arms is for personal defense as well as for defense of the state.

[Brownstone322]

Originally Posted by davidsog

And? You contended that the BOR can be repealed or amended.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

All of the Constitution -- from the preamble to the 27th Amendment -- is subject to revision or outright repeal. This argument in a non-starter. Why's it keep coming up here? (And, again, the many-times proposed "Flag Desecration Amendment" was a popular movement to restrict the scope of the 1st Amendment; many questioned its wisdom, but no educated person questioned its legality.)

Originally Posted by davidsog

Which is why we have draconian state laws in places like New York, California, and New Jersey.

Outside of the fact the right to bear arms cannot be repealed, It is kind of a weak half measure ruling.

I know of no gun-control laws in New York, California, New Jersey or anywhere else that clearly conflict with the three most important Supreme Court rulings on the matter: US v. Miller (1939), DC v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

Those rulings did not address restrictions on public carry except to note (in Heller) that they'd been upheld in the past. Common restrictions on "assault weapons" and "high capacity" magazines could conflict with Heller's "common use for lawful purposes" doctrine, but, again, there's no high-court ruling that applies specifically to that topic.

[44 AMP]

The government cannot take them away?

No, the government cannot take away our right.

But, after that, it becomes a matter of semantics, and theory vs. reality.

The Government cannot take away our rights. They can deny, restrict, infringe, fail to recognize, etc., but they cannot take away our RIGHT to something, they can only use their power to prevent us from exercising rights that we will always have.

That's the theory side.

No court ruling, no law, no piece of paper, or anything created by man can tell a lion he has no right to have his claws. Nor can any law or ruling deny the porcupine his quills.

But, you can lock that lion in a cage, and deny him his right to liberty. Doesn't remove a lion's right to be a lion.

Now, we can argue about the practical side, of how a right denied = a right removed, but that isn't the exactly same thing.

[davidsog]

Primary Holding

The right to keep and bear arms exists separately from the Constitution and is not to be found in the Second Amendment.

U.S. Supreme Court
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/92/542/

Where does the Supreme Court say that the Second Amendment cannot be amended or repealed? Certainly not in the case you cited in post #39. From the link you provided:

That is kind of EXACTLY what the case says....

You cannot repeal something that does not exist within your privy.

I am required to have a permit to carry a handgun in my home state. I have permits from six different states and, even with SIX permission slips that the Second Amendment says I don't need, I can carry legally in only about 30 or 32 states. Within my own home state and my home town, although I have a state-issued permission slip, I cannot carry a (or even possess an unloaded) firearm on any town-owned property. Yet the Second Amendment says that my "right" to bear (carry) arms "shall not be infringed." My own state's constitution says it even more strongly, specifically mentioning that the right to bear arms is for personal defense as well as for defense of the state.

I agree and think it is very necessary that the SCOTUS hear another 2nd Amendment case to clear up the ambiguity.

No court ruling, no law, no piece of paper, or anything created by man can tell a lion he has no right to have his claws. Nor can any law or ruling deny the porcupine his quills.

But, you can lock that lion in a cage, and deny him his right to liberty. Doesn't remove a lion's right to be a lion.

Now, we can argue about the practical side, of how a right denied = a right removed, but that isn't the exactly same thing.

Well put.