Is there any movement to repeal the second ammendment?

[rurallib]

There ought to be. As long as it is on the books it will be trouble.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. If it was, who would be the only people with guns ?

Rust limp gaul isn't much of an example for the first, you now what I mean .

[Major Nikon]

16. The same people who have them now

There's no enumerated right in the Constitution for cars, yet lots of people own them.

The 2nd amendment as it has been interpreted just recently only serves as an obstacle to reasonable regulation. As such it has far outlived its usefulness and should be removed.

[orpupilofnature57]

18. Driving a car is a Privilege, owning a gun Should be the same,,,,Now .

[Major Nikon]

21. It already is

Most states don't allow felons and certain others to possess guns and certain types of guns are further restricted to everyone. It's just a matter of how far we can regulate them.

[CTyankee]

64. I agree entirely...

[graham4anything]

26. guns are not meant to overthrow governments in coup'd'etats. Tea party wants anarchy

[orpupilofnature57]

44. The Tea party wants Antebellum .

[jody]

2. If 2A were repealed, RKBA would be protected as an unenumerated right by the Ninth Amendment. nt

[dkf]

3. First time I've seen this mentioned. Interesting.

http://mobile.alternet.org/alternet/#!/entry/the-silent-ninth-amendment-gives-americans-rights-they-dont-know,5080b73dd7fc7b567021929b

[jody]

5. Heller dissent by Stevens recognized RKBA for self-defense by PA(1776) & VT(1777). Constitution does

not mention inalienable/unalienable rights as PA & VT acknowledged but in Heller both opinion and dissent justices acknowledge preexisting rights that do not depend upon our Constitution.

PA & VT could not have given away inalienable/unalienable rights when they ratified our Constitution and BOR and they preexist our Constitution.

If the Second Amendment did not exist, then PA & VT's "right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state" would still exist and protected as an unenumerated right under the Ninth.

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

[Major Nikon]

17. I didn't get that out of the dissent

The reason Stevens acknowledged PA and VT constitutions is because he specifically provided them as examples of how Madison knew about the inclusion of civilian uses for firearms in other constitutions and specifically declined to include such language in the 2nd Amendment.

Using the 9th Amendment as justification for a civilian right to "keep and bear arms" is a pretty weak argument generally only found deep in the annals of gun nuttery. Even Scalia doesn't even try to make that weak argument in the majority opinion, and he makes a number of other weak arguments.

[jody]

20. Perhaps you and I brought different backgrounds when we read Steven's dissent.

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expresslyprotect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that [font color = ff0000 size = 3]“the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,”[/font] 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed [font color = ff0000 size = 3]“{t|}hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.”[/font] Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ single-minded focus in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” was on military uses of firearms, which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

I can understand how someone who has an agenda to deny law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense would arrive at different understanding of the highlighted passages from PA and VT constitutions than others who support the plain meaning of those passages.

[Major Nikon]

25. Try it with this part highlighted...

The parallels between the Second Amendment and these state declarations, and the Second Amendment ’s omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense, is especially striking in light of the fact that the Declarations of Rights of Pennsylvania and Vermont did expresslyprotect such civilian uses at the time. Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s 1776 Declaration of Rights announced that “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state,” 1 Schwartz 266 (emphasis added); §43 of the Declaration assured that “the inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not inclosed,” id., at 274. And Article XV of the 1777 Vermont Declaration of Rights guaranteed “{t|}hat the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.” Id., at 324 (emphasis added). The contrast between those two declarations and the Second Amendment reinforces the clear statement of purpose announced in the Amendment’s preamble. It confirms that the Framers’ [font color="red"]single-minded focus[/font] in crafting the constitutional guarantee “to keep and bear arms” [font color="red"]was on military uses of firearms[/font], which they viewed in the context of service in state militias.

[jody]

32. OK but Stevens closed the door when he acknowledged RKBA as a pre-existing right. If not 2A then 9A.

When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden.14 [font color = ff0000 size = 3]And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19, is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.[/font]

That's my point, five justices say the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for self defense as a pre-existing right.

Four dissenting justices reject the opinion but acknowledge the right to keep and bear arms for self defense is a pre-existing right.

One can twist their statement anyway they wish but the if the dissent every becomes the majority then RKBA as a pre-existing right is then protected by the Ninth Amendment.

[Major Nikon]

35. If the 9A argument is as strong as you claim, why didn't Scalia make it?

The question in front of the court was not the scope of the 2A. The question before the court was the constitutionality of the DC ban. If the 9A argument had any merit, Scalia would have mentioned it. In the majority decision he only mentions the 9A in relation to the context of what "the people" meant.

If this argument had any merit whatsoever, there's no question Scalia would have included it. Instead his argument centered almost solely over the text of the amendment. Scalia pretends to be an "originalist" when it comes to the Constitution, and if he actually had used the method he claims to subscribe, he would have reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Stevens points this out brilliantly in his dissent. Just like most of the other garbage that comes out of Scalia, his decision was complete shit and flies in the face of everything Scalia supposedly stands in support.

[jody]

36. Because Scalia asked a different question "We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition

on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

A number of people in 2007 asked whether the question Scalia posed was too narrow.

I'm not an attorney and not a Constitutional scholar but back in 2007 I was persuaded that a better question might have been, "Is there an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and if yes is it protected by the Second Amendment as an enumerated right or by the Ninth Amendment as an unenumerated right?"

I do not apologize for my structure above since I've already identified myself as not an attorney nor constitutional scholar.

Still I believe that would have been a better question than posed in Heller.

[Major Nikon]

39. Scalia didn't pose the question, nor could he

The question came to him. His job as a SCOTUS justice is to stand as one of 9 final arbiters to questions posed to the court. Regardless of what argument you think Scalia should have made, the only thing that matters is what argument he actually did make because that was the argument that was addressed by the dissent.

Scalia is an originalist who believes that the Constitution should reflect the ordinary meaning of a reasonable person who lived at the time it was written. Scalia has repeatedly said that if the Constitution doesn't say it, you can't infer it. So even if the 9th Amendment argument had any validity whatsoever (and I'm certainly not saying it does), it is a non-starter for both Scalia and Thomas who are both originalists. Scalia's argument was that the 2nd Amendment specifically included the right of self-defense, calling it "analogous" to other state constitutions which actually did specifically include such language (as you have already pointed out). Stevens, the other dissenting justices, and the best legal minds in the country tore Scalia a new asshole for his decision, and what was his response? Fuck you, I'm a SCOTUS justice and you're not. That was his answer which only proves what a complete fuckup he is. He's a hypocritical asshole who rails against "activist judges", then becomes one when it suits his ideology and simply ignores his critics. Both him and Thomas have no business as SCOTUS jurists and neither should have ever been confirmed. Even Bush knew what fuckups Scalia and Thomas are. That's why neither was made Chief Justice and never will be.

[jody]

40. Regardless Stevens in dissent acknowledged RKBA for self-defense. If not 2A then 9a. nt

[Major Nikon]

42. Are you just repeating this from some gun nut site?

Because it doesn't appear as if you understand what the Stevens dissent means. You would help yourself by reading all of it. Stevens listed two state (commonwealth) documents that included language for self defense which supported his argument that self-defense was specifically excluded from the 2A. That doesn't mean he "acknowledged" that right as it applies to the 2nd Amendment or any other. He simply cited factual information in historical documents which support his argument just like any other judge does. Certainly VA and PA could include a civilian right to bear arms just like any other state can in their own constitution. Stevens never challenged this because that's NOT the argument Scalia made.

Here is the wiki article on the 9th Amendment. The only reference to what you are saying is this:

[font color=red size=2]Gun rights activists[/font] in recent decades have sometimes argued for a fundamental natural right to keep and bear arms that both predates the U.S. Constitution and is covered by the Constitution's Ninth Amendment; according to this viewpoint, the Second Amendment only enumerates a pre-existing right to keep and bear arms.[15]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The reference provided by wiki is a gun nut site.

I'm not going to entertain gun nut arguments written by gun nuts for the consumption of gun nuts. My only interest is discussing what the SCOTUS decision actually argued and actually said, not some tangential fantasy argument from some gun nut web site. Scalia didn't even go there and I damn sure ain't. If you want to, be my guest, but I'm not going there with you. If you want to have that discussion, the gungeon is the perfect place for it. You won't find me in there. Just sayin'

[jody]

48. Link to my post below the day Heller was released. Sorry you are not capable of understanding the

point I make.

I'll continue later with someone else who can. Goodbye.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x177461

[Major Nikon]

49. You're confusing understanding with caring

I understand exactly what your argument is and where it comes from which I pointed out some time ago in post #17. I can provide references to this argument going back as far as 40 years ago at least. So I'm sure you'd like people to believe it's your idea, but I find it quite hard to believe you would somehow come up with an independent conclusion that just so happens to mirror the nuttiest of gun nuttery that's been around for decades.

[Recursion]

58. Stevens and Ginsburg IIRC both argued that

I actually lean towards that view; I think the 2nd amendment protects our right to keep firearms in a town arsenal.

[treestar]

4. There should be. It has to be started in each state, too.

So as to get the statehouse votes needed.

Connecticut - good place to start. Then list the states that should be targeted. Too bad the 2010 election created so many right wing state houses. That needs working on, too.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. And it would take only thirteen states to stop it in its tracks.

[Jenoch]

57. Before the states can vote on it,

an amendment must be passed by a 2/3 vote in congress.

[treestar]

61. True, so it's a tall order

We need to not back down because it's hard, though. Get the mechanisms into place for when there is a Democratic, i.e., more reasonable House/Senate. And quit electing Republicans to all offices.

[Jenoch]

63. See my post at the bottom of this thread.

[H2O Man]

6. silly

[HereSince1628]

7. No, but there seems to be some movement to narrow the Fourteenth

with respect to due process for the mentally ill.

[jody]

8. Any group proposing to abolish an inalienable/unalienable right they hate, ignore unintended

consequences aka "what goes around, comes around."

[HereSince1628]

9. The 14th Amendment doesn't provide unalienable rights...

The 14th amendment provides Constitutional rights amongst them Due Process.

I don't understand your comment.

[jody]

10. McDonald v Chicago, Second Amendment incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment and applies to the states.

PA(1776) & VT(1777) acknowledged RKBA is an inalienable/unalienable right and SCOTUS acknowledged the Second Amendment preexisted our Constitution, then McDonald v Chicago linked all that together under the Fourteenth, didn't it?

[HereSince1628]

11. I'm not a lawyer...so the language inalienable/unalienable is unfamiliar

my comment re the 14th and due process was about the pubic outcry, and that of the NRA, for denying the broadly characterized "mentally ill' the right to own firearms without a trial or opportunity to contest that action.

[jody]

13. I'm not a lawyer either. I understand and agree with your point. nt

[ZombieMan]

12. Not in my lifetime.

[Zoeisright]

31. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

If that's a challenge, I accept it.

[NickB79]

14. Man, we are really trying hard to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, aren't we?

By "we", I mean the progressive/left/Democratic party.

Something like 100 million households in the US have guns. A large portion of those are Democrats as well as the stereotypical conservative population. Numerous polls over the years here on DU alone have shown that a large number of DU'ers own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment as an individual right, albeit with wide disagreement on how it's interpreted and implemented.

We're finally seeing the possibility that we've broken the stranglehold the GOP has had on this country since Reagan was elected. Obama was re-elected despite numerous problems that he inherited, and the tide felt like it was finally turning towards a more progressive way of politics in this country.

Has it occurred to anyone else just why Obama was virtually silent on gun control his entire first term? If he had tried to re-instate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban then, his chances for re-election would have been stymied.

The political backlash against a push for an outright ban on gun ownership through repeal of the 2nd Amendment would be epic in scale. The NRA would have so much money pouring in, they wouldn't be able to spend it fast enough.

[banned from Kos]

47. Spot on. All purple states would swing back red.

Gun bans are political suicide.

[Dems to Win]

15. National Don't Wanna Get Shot By A Rifle Association. Help collect 4 million signatures

Please help kick the thread to the front page

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022055101

Half of American homes do not have guns, yet we are at terrible risk from the lethal weapons in our neighbors' homes. Enough! Time for us to speak out.


That's why I created a petition to The United States House of Representatives, The United States Senate, and President Barack Obama, which says:

"Repeal the Second Amendment Now. This anachronistic, poorly worded amendment prevents us from passing real gun control measures that will be effective in stopping the ongoing gun slaughter. It should be no more a constitutional right to own a gun than to own a car."

Will you sign my petition? Click here to add your name:

http://signon.org/sign/repeal-the-second-amendment-6?source=c.fwd&r_by=5543184

[-..__...]

22. 18 signatures so far.

4 more and you can have yourself a game of soccer.

[cthulu2016]

19. Which states Romney won are we looking at to ratify it?

It takes 33 states.

That doesn't mean don't try... just noting that it is something that will not happen for a very long time.

Having the Suprme Court rewrite the 2nd Amendment is much more doable, though neither is easy.

[graham4anything]

27. It's quite easy. Obama44 and Hillary45 name 4-5 new justices who will do that w/Bloomberg financing

with Bloomberg financing any and all candidates to be for just that

money talks, the NRA will be history as they no longer can blackmail candidates and common sense will prevail within 6 to 12 years

the NRA will say nothing is happening, but then redwoods take a while once planted to bloom

the NRA has less than 4 million members, some of which are dead.
Put that figure w/total population and its 1.5 %.
98.5% of the people don't want it

and in each state, even the reddest, there are people.

many things can be done, including taking away the tax free status for one

It's a perfect storm, and there are people in place that can achieve this consittutionally

[NickB79]

33. You think the NRA's membership and income will stay static

In the face of that kind of onslaught on their perceived rights?!? Really?

Hell, I expect the NRA's numbers and donations to EXPLODE in the next year just because of the whispers of more gun control we're already seeing due to Sandy Hook.

The main reason the NRA's numbers and income has been dropping in recent years is that the Democrats haven't thrown them any red meat to rally the troops, so to speak. There's a damn good reason Obama didn't say anything about gun control, or push new gun control measures, in his first term. It would have made his re-election much more difficult, and put many of his fellow Democrats from gun-friendly states in a very awkward position. It may sound crazy, but the NRA lives off things like this. It gives validation to their paranoid claims that Democrats are out to "come take your guns away!"

Bloomberg's finances would have a hard time competing with the bump the gun rights advocacy groups would get nationally. Look how the billions that the GOP's big guns like the Koch's and Adelson's brought to bear in the last election won them very little in return.

If the Democrats don't play this right, we might not see another Democrat win the White House in 2016 to put more SC justices in place.

[graham4anything]

41. this is such convoluted logic. The louder one speaks, the quicker they are gone

Hillary45 already has won 2016.

The NRA is toast. Bloomberg is financing the opposition and he has more money than the NRA and Sheldon A. put together.
Let alone the millions of people out there that donate too.

[CTyankee]

65. I like your thinking here, graham...

[Mister Ed]

23. Is it even possible to repeal an amendment in the Bill of Rights?

I thought I'd read that those first ten amendments, i.e. the Bill of Rights, are not subject to repeal. But I have only a hazy, ninth-grade-civics-class understanding of Constitutional law.

Could those with a better understanding of the law weigh in and inform me on this?

Thanks,

Mr. Ed

[cthulu2016]

24. Yes, anything in the Constitution can be ammended.

[Recursion]

59. Anything can be amended

Just like any other part of the Constitution.

[Angleae]

66. Possible, yes. Realistically, not a snowball's chance in hell (and I don't mean a town in Michigan).

You need 38 state legislatures to do so.

[sellitman]

28. I think it should be left as it is.

I think it should be implemented as written.

"Well Regulated"

Very,

[Quantess]

29. Yeah, good luck with that.

Good luck passing even the slightest amount of gun control, actually.

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. I think it needs re-defining

Not repealing.

[duffyduff]

34. You don't need to repeal it

What you need is a high court that actually interprets the law like it is supposed to instead of making up shit like it did in 2008 with regard to the Second Amendment.

The Roberts court completely violated decades of precedent while making up shit about an individual's "right" to own a gun.

[jody]

38. If 2A were repealed, RKBA would be protected as an unenumerated right by the Ninth Amendment. nt

[graham4anything]

45. Isn't it odd that the gunnies are now using a different amendment, ha ha ha ha

It is funny as the gunnies never before thought any other than the 2nd mattered.

now they are running toward another

I run toward the woman's privacy issue.
Women are constitutionally allowed to have an abortion, yet it has been parsed to almost never occurring.

Let's do the same and make gun sales almost impossible especially in red states like Kansas.
And no gun shows.

And make it so infrequent that it is next to impossible.

Just like the same folks did to abortions.

[friendly_iconoclast]

50. "Now using"? Where have you been?

[graham4anything]

52. Show me where on gun threads that was mentioned before this incident

[friendly_iconoclast]

60. Here you go, these are just the ones I could be arsed to find:

BTW, doing a site search with the terms "Fourteenth Amendment" and "gun control"
will return 5000+ results...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117254430#post11

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=53326

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=1685

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=7353

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117212744#post25

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117212744#post59

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=7360

[graham4anything]

62. I thought we were talking about the 9th amendment and I thought only 1-10 are what

you guys say count

the 14th is past the first 10
they come in handy though, don';t they?

[friendly_iconoclast]

72. It's evident you thought wrongly, now isn't it?

[jody]

71. See link below posted 27 June 2008

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x177461

[Major Nikon]

46. Exactly

Scalia's decision was completely ridiculous. His entire argument revolves around ignoring the first 13 words of the second amendment and inventing a self-defense inferrence which Madison specifically rejected. What's truly comical about it is that Scalia pretends to be an originalist who interprets the plain meaning of the Constitution and constantly whines about "activist judges", yet the only way he can get to his decision is by rejecting the plain language meaning of the 2A in favor of an inferred meaning which is historically inaccurate. It's judicial activism at its finest.

[Recursion]

67. Then-Senator Obama said it referred to an individual right in 2008, before Heller was decided

I think there's a bit of protesting-too-much that this is some crazy, wackadoo view that Heller came up with out of nowhere. Obama's actual quote was, "if you ask me, that looks like an individual right".

[samsingh]

51. we need to insist that it be interpreted properly and accurately

and not parsed to sell guns

[Android3.14]

53. Only by people who are as bugnut crazy as the other end of the spectrum of this debate

With the rest of us, we are hoping the sane consensus will grow to ban assault weapons and large clips, and maybe do something about tracking guns to keep them out of the hands of persons who are mentally incompetent and unable to handle the responsibility.

Repeal the second amendment? Sure. That's gonna happen. Maybe they'll ban cars next.

[MightyMopar]

55. We need a new Consitution in general, this one has become too damaged

"Some men look at constitutions with sanctimonious reverence, and deem them like the ark of the Covenant, too sacred to be touched. They ascribe to the men of the preceding age a wisdom more than human, and suppose what they did to be beyond amendment… laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind… as that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, institutions must advance also, to keep pace with the times… We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain forever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
-- Thomas Jefferson, on reform of the Virginia Constitution

[Berserker]

68. Awesome post

And welcome to DU.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. It was never a problem until a few years ago

For about 200 years, the Supreme Court had NEVER recognized an individual right to own a firearm. It wasn't until 2008 and Columbia v. Heller (with Scalia writing the majority 5-4 decision) that the court ever did so.

So what we need is some new Supreme Court Justices. Might be easier that amending the constitution.

[Jenoch]

56. Remember what happened in the 1994 elections over the AWB?

In order to amend the constitution, the amendment needs a 2/3 vote in both the senate and house before being sent to the various state legislative bodies. If by some miracle that happened, then 3/4 of the states must ratify the amendment. It would be more prudent to get control of the nutjobs with guns in another manner.

[TransitJohn]

69. I see that going less far than the ERA. eom

n/t

[Shrek]

70. Nearly all state constitutions also guarantee gun rights

Repealing the second amendment would have a limited effect.