I guess this question is pointed to you real smart political process dopers.
I mean lets say the anti gun people cause such a fuss that the govt bans guns for everybody. What I am asking is it possible for the Govt to take away our guns since it was a written right in our constitution? I mean is there a process in the constitution they could manipulate to revoke the right to bear arms. Then come to our homes and get our guns?
You realize I hope that this isn’t really a general question? It is one of the granddaddies of great debates. There are a ton of em going on over in Great Debates as we speak. You should pop into there and take a look.
Oh ok know I will. But just to make sure that everybody clear on my question. I was wondering more on the lines if they could do it. Not if they will do it.
I doubt it would be legal as the Constitution is now written. But, sure. There’s a way. All ya gotta do is get the 2[sup]nd[/sup] amendment repealed.
for anyone who wants to see the actual admendment, check the sig:
Uncle Beer,
First, thanks for answering. So it is written in the constitution by the forefathers that the gov’t could repeal an amendment. Why? I mean what was the point of giving this right in the first place if you can let the current govt of the time repeal it?
Ever hear about prohibition?
As I see it the founding fathers saw that the only way for this country to remain ‘free’ the gov’t should not interfere with the peoples rights to own and carry firearms. A well regulated Militia is not the armed forces but a civilian force.
again the above is my interpertation. I think the goverment is very dishonest when it comes to this (to me very clear) admemdment. I think peace through strenght has worked for this country and would work on the personal level as well. And I think it’s important that people realise what the 2nd admendment actually states (and how govt views gun ownership). That’s why I choose it as my sig line
No it isn’t, really. The only way to legally ban all guns is to pass an amendment repealing the second. That would require a majority of both houses and a majority of the legislatures of three fourths of the states. Possible, sure, but not bloody likely.
The bill of rights are not rights given by man, but rights man already had and the fathers guaranteed by decreeing they were “inalienable” meaning they could not be taken away by a government.
The Bill of Rights were not the same “inalienable” rights mentioned by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.
The Bill of Rights was intend to explicitly list rights which all the states believed belonged to citizens and were fearful that the Constitution did not list.
Many states ratified the Constitution contingent on there being a Bill of Rights.
Some constitutional scholars have argued that you can amend just about anything in the Constitution with the exceptions of: 1) denying a state equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent and 2) abrogating basic human rights (e.g. elminating freedom of religion.)
Others disagree with these contentions. And that’s why we have a Great Deabtes forum!
Well, once an amendment is adopted, it becomes part of the Constitution, right? Why would any of the amendments in the bill of rights have any special status over the rest of the constitution (other than the fact that we consider freedom of speech more fundimental than a bicameral legislature?
I would like to mention that interpretation of the second amendment also rests on court decisions. So for example I don’t see it as inconceivable that courts could decide that laws forbidding gun ownership unless you’re part of a state-organized militia (whatever the court would take that to mean).
Remember that slavery was legal in the United States for many years after the constitution and the bill of rights were adopted.
So for example I don’t see it as inconceivable that courts could decide that laws forbidding gun ownership unless you’re part of a state-organized militia (whatever the court would take that to mean) do not contradict the second amendment.
Yes, it is very possible, the Constitution not withstanding.
People seem to have this idea that bills, laws, ordinances, court decisions, etc. can’t be unconstitutional, as if a bolt of lightening automatically atomizes them upon creation. Quite the contrary: there are many laws currently on the books that are patently unconstitutional. Would you like me to name a few?
There is really nothing to prevent the federal government from taking our guns, for example. In fact, there is really nothing to prevent the government from doing anything it wants; after all, it’s fantastically armed. The contract (i.e. the Constitution) is only as good as the bounded party/parties involved. If the government reneges on it, the contract is powerless to anything about - it’s just a piece of paper. (It should also be noted that the contract is one-sided, in that it restricts the government, not the people. Thus only the government can renege on it, not us…)
Let’s get specific: Congress can very easily pass a bill to ban the private ownership of firearms. There is absolutely nothing to stop it from doing this. Nothing. “But it would be unconstitutional,” you say. So what?! Congress could simply say that the 2nd Amendment only protects the right of the National Guard to be armed. Or that it is strictly a “State right.” Or that firearms are “dangerous consumer products” that must be strictly regulated. Or that we have a “living Constitution,” and the 2nd Amendment must be “interpreted based on 21st century standards,” etc. etc. etc. And a Supreme Court stacked with Gore-appointed judges would agree. Then it would be “good-bye guns, hello tyranny.”
Given the State’s lack of success removing those guns which are already illegally owned from their illegal owners, I’d have to say that the General Question answer to your question is “no.”
Yes, they could do it. You can repeal the 2nd Amendment for starters. Or you could simply have various local, state, and possibly federal governments sue the manufacturers of firearms out of existence.
This isn’t far fetched because the government has worked on eroding a few of our other rights thanks to the war on drugs. Your property can be confiscated without a trial and to get them back you must prove they are not ill gotten gains.
Marc
I am not a lawyer, but I have a D&D character who is one, so I decided to imagine what she’d say on the subject of the Second Amendment. Keep in mind she’s Lawful Neutral and is a stickler for legal propriety. This is what I came up with.
What they said.
Scarey isn’t it?
or is that scary?
Sheesh I can’t type today!