• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Amending the 2nd Amendment

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
At least those who wish to appeal or amend the 2nd amendment have my respect.
I don't agree with them, just respect them. Note, I'm not a Constitution Law expert, so corrections are welcome.

Article V The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.

They are at least following the Constitution and it's rules and are not trying to legislate around the Bill of Rights with a ban.
Of course, a right is a right; recognized (not granted) by the Constitution, and cannot be amended, appealed, or legislated away.

5 USC § 3331 - Oath of office An individual, except the President, elected or appointed to an office of honor or profit in the civil service or uniformed services, shall take the following oath: “I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” This section does not affect other oaths required by law.

If only there were penalties to forswearing their oath of office... Sen. Feinstein & all who vote for the weapons ban should be immediately fired for perjuring their oath.

We all need to contact our Congressmen and Representatives, remind them that:
1) there is only one way to legally change the Constitution and Bill of Rights, ie Article 5.
2) that a weapons ban at any level is unconstitutional and will tie everyone up in the courts.
3) and remind them of their oath to support and defend the Constitution.

We should not have to argue stats, charts, and numbers to show a ban is worthless, although they do show that it is.
All it should take is one member of the House and/or Congress to stand up and make the motion that the Feinstein ban is unconstitutional on its face, and motion that it must be handled as a constitutional amendment under Article 5.
 
Last edited:

lockman

State Researcher
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,193
Location
Elgin, Illinois, USA
Repeal of the second amendment would not repeal your fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It would just show that congress and 3/4 this of the states agree not to be bound to protect your rights. If the government won't enforce your rights, then you must protect your own.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
It would repeal the enumerated Right to Keep and Bear Arms. It would not repeal the underlying God-given (or natural, if your prefer) right to defend yourself. Those two rights are not the same right, but often confused.
 

unreconstructed1

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2008
Messages
695
Location
Tennessee, ,
I saw recently that a constitutional amendment resolution to repeal term limits for the presidency was introduced as well.

I honestly don't see either getting very far, but as was said before I at least respect the fact that they understand the idea of constitutional boundaries.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
The constitution is a document that checks the federal government in any attempt to infringe upon a enumerated natural right. Thus, the natural right to self defense is not enumerated in the constitution and therefore can not be repealed. The 2A, in my view, enumerates that a specific type of tool is considered a fundamental component of our efforts to protect our right to life, liberty, and happiness. The 2A checks the efforts of the federal government to remove that fundamental component.
 

Lord Sega

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 10, 2010
Messages
311
Location
Warrenton, Oregon
The constitution is a document that checks the federal government in any attempt to infringe upon a enumerated natural right. Thus, the natural right to self defense is not enumerated in the constitution and therefore can not be repealed. The 2A, in my view, enumerates that a specific type of tool is considered a fundamental component of our efforts to protect our right to life, liberty, and happiness. The 2A checks the efforts of the federal government to remove that fundamental component.

THAT ^^^ is as perfect as I have ever heard it stated, thank you.
 

Keylock

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2012
Messages
196
Location
OKC
The constitution is a document that checks the federal government in any attempt to infringe upon a enumerated natural right. Thus, the natural right to self defense is not enumerated in the constitution and therefore can not be repealed. The 2A, in my view, enumerates that a specific type of tool is considered a fundamental component of our efforts to protect our right to life, liberty, and happiness. The 2A checks the efforts of the federal government to remove that fundamental component.



Here is a point that most of us in the gun community may seem to be overlooking that came to mind today...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

An operative word of the 2A is the word arms. I've yet to see any bill that uses the legal term 'arms'. The last AWB used 'firearms', 'weapons', etc. I was unable to find 'arms' in the text.

The point is this. Those tools in our gunsafes are by design and intent the very 'arms' that the Founders mention and wrote into the amendment and that state ratifiers voted in favor. Thus, these nonenumerated, unconstitutional "laws" (viz Article 1, Section 8 and Article 6, second paragraph ["... made in Pursuance thereof;..."]) are not talking about arms, but things that none of us possess. I'm no lawyer, but in legal language, words have definite meanings. 'Firearms & weapons' are not the same as 'arms' mentioned in the 2A.

The only option left to the fed.gov would to be to write the law to read 'arms'... a clear violation of the 2A. They will not use the term 'arms' in whatever unconstitutional, unenumerated "law" they concoct and attempt to enforce.

Thus, I will from this point onward refer to those tools in my gunsafe as 'arms' on every gun forum or other place where I talk about these tools. They are not guns, not firearms, not weapons, not sabers, not swords, not knives, etc... but arms.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
If we had a right to keep and carry birds, wouldn't a law against keeping or carrying ducks violate that right? The law would not have to use the word "birds" for it to infringe on the right. You wouldn't have to resort to calling your ducks "birds" to protect them.

Firearms such as ARs and AR clones are the very kind of arms that the 2A is talking about. Even if the antis play word games, we don't need to. We should win the argument with logic or, worst case scenario, if and when it comes down to it, with those very protected arms. We ain't there yet, but it is becoming harder and harder to see a path from our current place back to Liberty that does not go through using the right--to the max--to protect the right and all the others.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Here is a point that most of us in the gun community may seem to be overlooking that came to mind today...

<snip>

Thus, I will from this point onward refer to those tools in my gunsafe as 'arms' on every gun forum or other place where I talk about these tools. They are not guns, not firearms, not weapons, not sabers, not swords, not knives, etc... but arms.
I must confess that I too fall prey to the habit of narrowly defining "arms", as is used in the 2a, to firearms. My hunting blades are arms, though I instinctively refer to them as tools and not arms.

Illumination and understanding.....thank you Good Sir.
 
Top