Proposed Amendment to clarify gun rights

Great Debates
1

If you’re not too burned out on GD gun control threads (and I understand if you are!), give this a read. How would you feel about amending the Constitution to add some Congressional powers over gun ownership, while dishing some power out to state governments, and not repealing the Second or anything?

How about an amendment which said, something like, "Congress shall have the power to create a process for marshalling, preparing, educating, and directing civilian gun-owners, reserving to the states the powers to appoint officials to carry out this process, and the authority to train the gun-owners as part of the federal program.”

I think this sort of amendment would be a good idea, because though I believe in the right to bear arms, I think it is crucial to the safety of a republic that gun-owners be regulated well. Right now, I see the need for some nationwide training mandates, but I concede that the Bill of Rights probably doesn’t confer the rights to mandate any such thing upon the Federal government. Hence my desire for such an amendment.

Would this amendment clash with your view of the right to bear arms? How much authority, in practical and/or theoretical terms, would this amendment grant to (state and federal) governments? How do you think the framers of the Constitution would have felt about it?

2

if you can prove that merely owning a handgun makes one turn into Slayer, lord of murder and destruction then I’d agree to stricter handgun control. :slight_smile:

About the bill tho… who is paying for all this? there are a lot of states still ticked off about “Unfunded Mandates”.

3

Under the current ammendment, training mandates would be permissible, due to the term “well-regulated” used in the second ammendment.

I certainly would not support any new ammendment that abridges the second, but if one were put into effect, I’d stop a lot more of my complaints about gun control.

Right now, I think a lot of gun control bills are based on innaccurate and biased evidence, and I’d want a lot more than questionable statistics to base a new ammendment on. Of course, I do realize that it can be argued that statistics and evidence against gun control are questionable as well…

4

I’ll jump in here while this is still reasonable and say that all this hoopla over gun control seems to be a case of closing the barn door after the cows have gotten out.

Violent crime has been steadily decreasing in America since 1993 (source: D.O.J.'s Uniform Crime Statistics). The attempts to lay on new gun legislation after-the-fact seem specious to me and many other gun owners who know and understand the legislative background of the myriad gun-control laws.

I was raised around guns, and had safety, Safety, SAFETY drilled into me by my Dad, Mom, sister, brother and a whole slew of aunts, uncles and cousins. So I don’t particularly feel the need for additional safety training for myself; however, I have seen plenty of boneheads out at public ranges and out hunting to certainly wish that anybody who is even contemplating picking up a gun be thoroughly drilled in the basics of firearms safety.

I think mandatory training is a good idea, but i have grave reservations concerning it’s implementation; not the least of which would be the gun-control crowd’s obvious delight in throwing as many obstacles into gun-owner’s paths as to make such mandatory training unfeasible for too many people, especially lower-income people or folks living in rural areas.

Registration is another nice idea that I have no qualms about in theory; once again, as a gun owner, I lay awake at night dreading it’s enactment and implementation, for recent history has shown us two representative democracies that have used Registration as a springboard for Banning and Confiscation (not the least of which is also New York city’s example).

I think a majority of the gun-control crowd is simply people who want to see the violence stopped, and have no real motivation to ban or confiscate firearms; but there is a signifigant and highly vocal minority who do, and use their fellow’s very reasonableness as camoflauge to try to get any and all firearms banned, everywhere, by hook or by crook (a simple examination of HCI’s tactics will bear this out).

Until the rabid gun-grabbers back off and dial back the ad hominem rhetoric, there will be no reason, no accomodation, no compromise.

Only when gun owners and their representative organizations feel secure in their rights can steps be taken to insure that firearms stay only in the right hands; that is reasonable, sane, law-abiding citizens.

ExTank

5

I always think of one morething to say after I’ve posted my reply.

To the OP and his posit: if the circumstances described in my last paragraph ever come to pass, altering the Second will become a moot point.

Until it does, attempts to alter the Second will set off a political firestorm the likes of which haven’t been seen since Rosa Parks said “I ain’t movin’!”

Anything else is just an interesting (but largely pointless) mind game.

ExTank

6

Even if I agreed that such an amendment would be a good idea–which I don’t–there isn’t sufficient political support for modifying the Second Amendment. I don’t believe there is sufficient political support to modify any of the Bill of Rights, for which I myself am profoundly grateful. (Though the Flag-Burning Amendment, which is an attempt to modify the First Amendment, keeps coming back from the dead.)

But…in my opinion, if the Bill of Rights didn’t already exist, I don’t think there would be sufficient political support to enact any of it (with the possible exception of the Third Amendment, which agitates no one). I personally find that state of affairs frightening as hell.

7

Here’s a question (from someone who doesn’t own any guns and never has):

Why is it that the very people who shot down the distinguished judge Robert Bork, precisely BECAUSE he insisted that the Constitution must be read exactly as the Founders intended it, suddenlt become strict constructionists on the issue of the Second Amendment?

I grant you, James Madison never envisioned street gangs carrying Uzis- he’d have been horrified by the concept. On the other hand, Madison never envisioned the Playboy Channel, either. He’d undoubtedly have been horrified by THAT, too.

Nonetheless, people on the left invariably insist that the First Amendment must be read expansively, and must cover all sorts of things that the Founders could not have foreseen. These same people, naturally, insist that the Second Amendment must be read narrowly, and applies only to muskets used in a state militia.

My attitude is this: either the Bill of RIghts means what it says, or it doesn’t. Read all Amendments as broadly or as narrowly as possible. If you don’t like the Second Amendment, work to repeal it. But don’t pretend it doesn’t say what it DOES say.

8

I don’t think there are many people who like the idea of adding anything more to the Constitution. After all, the more stuff that’s added, the more confusing the whole thing gets… and, let’s face it, it’s confusing enough already, right?

9

When I suggestions about training and registration, I am always reminded of how these concepts worked in New York State for hunting.

By way of background, my father owned a hunting store and was a vocal activist for hunters rights and was a Safety trainer. .

In NY state, one used to be able to buy a hunting license and go out and shoot one’s limit of whichever of god’s creatures the license permitted. Many people find hunting abhorrent and sought to curb it. After a couple of high profile hunting accidents, they proposed a “Hunter Safety Training Program”(HSTP). It sounded reasonable. How could you object to teaching people safety?

The HSTP first required all hunters to attend a 2 hour course with a certified instructor. All of this was controlled by the state Department of Envioronmental Conservation (DEC).

Then there was another high profile accident and courses were changed to 4 hours. THey were gradually increased to IIRC 10 hours for gun hunters and an additional 10 for bow hunters.

Then the head of the DEC, an avowed anti-hunter, started revoking the licenses of the instructors. Then he mandated maximumum class sizes. Then he stated that the trainers could not receive compensation in any form. THe number of instructors dropped to next to nothing.

Result: it is extremely difficult to get a hunting license for anyone, especially those who work. Anyone who wants to take his dog out and scare pheasants one day a year needs just gives up.

THE 2nd was designed to make sure that the right of citizens to bear arms without the government infringing upon those rights. Any system that would allow the de facto refusal of this right under the guise of registration or training is contrary to its intent. Quis cusdodiet ipsos custodes?

You don’t believe me? try to get a pistol pernmit in NY with an anti-gun Sheriff in office.

Leave the Constitution and guun laws ALONE.

10

But first, some commentary:

  1. With the exception of one clause in the Tenth Amendment which mentions the States, the Bill or Rights is exclusively concerned with individual rights. It sure seems out of context for the Second Amendment to be about the right of the several states to charter and arm militias. Still, the militia clause gives it just a tinge of ambiguity.

  2. Despite that, the Supremes have consistently ruled that that’s what the Second Amendment does. And as we all know, the Constitution means what five Supreme Court Justices said it means, the last time they addressed the subject.

It’s this fundamental tension that, IMO, cries out for a rewriting of the Second Amendment. The opponents of gun control have a wording of the Constitution that, under any common-sense interpretation, supports their view of gun rights - but they’ve got Supreme Court decisions that say there’s no individual right here. The gun-control folks have the Supreme Court decisions on their side, but they can’t exactly point to the Constitution. (They can convince each other that the militia clause means something, but I doubt they could convince too many people who have mixed feelings about gun control.)

Despite the fact that there’s no chance of a Second Amendment rewrite getting enshrined in the Constitution, let’s pretend anyway. Even in a universe where it had a chance, though, it wouldn’t make it unless both sides got part of what they wanted, but gave up some ground, as well. So what would such a compromise look like?
The pro-gun side would clearly like the Constitution to explicitly spell out the right of individuals to bear firearms appropriate for self-defense and for hunting legal game. (The pro-gun side may want more than that, but the nature of the debate has been such that they’ve mostly discussed what they don’t want. Pro-gun folks, if you want more than this, speak up!)

The gun-control side would like the Constitution to grant the Federal and state governments the authority to: (1) require registration of firearms, (2) outlaw firearms and ammunition that are overkill, so to speak, for the purposes listed above, and (3) legislate safety standards for legal firearms.

Is there room for a compromise here? Would there be room for such a compromise, loosely based on the above, but with some modifications? I’m not talking about the actual chances of passage of a Constitutional amendment; I’m talking about whether a compromise is possible that most people on both sides of the issue could agree to, in principle, if somehow it could leap the hurdles and replace the current Second Amendment in the Constitution.

Ready, aim, fire!

11

It still doesn’t clear up the issue of what a gun is.

Would automatic weapons still be illegal? How about 100 round clips? What if I felt the need for an anti-aircraft gun? Or perhaps a rocket launcher?

Can I still get training for all of the aforementioned?

12

[quote]
The pro-gun side would clearly like the Constitution to explicitly spell out the right of individuals to bear firearms appropriate for self-defense and for hunting legal game. (The pro-gun side may want more than that, but the nature of the debate has been such that they’ve mostly discussed what they don’t want. Pro-gun folks, if you want more than this, speak up!){/quote]

the reason that the 2nd was added was to protect the people from the government. The Arms are there to “ensure a free state”, not for hunting and self defense!

not given the restrictions you outline. THe problem is that the gun control folks fail to acknowledge the true reason that the 2nd was created. IF the 2nd is there to prevent a tyrannical government, then the government can’t be given control over the guns.

I would add that the Framers considered the right to bear arms to be an inalienable right. The supreme court ruled that while the 2nd does not apply to the states’ rights to regulate their citizens, the states still may not refuse the right to bear arms because it is an inalienable right.

13

First let me say I do indeed own a gun…a L1A1 rifle with 20-round clip, so if any hypocracy follows, I appologize.

that said, given I have taken advantage of current gun laws, I personally don’t see the 2nd Amendment as guaranteeing private citizen ownership of firearms. As I understand (and I may be wrong) the 2nd Amendment guarantees a “well-organized militia” the right to bear arms. I take this as being reflective of the state militias (i.e. National Guard) so if you want to own a gun you gotta join the National Guard. you and your drinking buddies shooting pumpkins with your M-16 would not qualify as a well organized militia. :slight_smile:

So I am generally in favour of stricter gun control legistlation, if that would actually result in lower homicide and accidental death rates (I suspect it would). I agree that gun ownership does not cause people to commit murder, but it sure makes it a lot easier!

14

Avalongod, you are innocent of hypocracy unless you are an appointed hypocrat. I’m just kidding. I’m not razzing your for misspelling, but it’s funny that, over time, the spelling “hypocrisy” seems to have fallen out of favor, to be replaced by “hypocracy”. “Hippocracy” is sure to follow … didn’t Caligula make his horse a Senator? Or was it Nero?

You’re probably right that there isn’t a whole lot of chance that three-quarters of states are going to sign onto some new gun measure. Really, I’m just wondering about this from a strictly theoretical perspective - what would it mean to a set of positive rights to set up a government process which could infringe on those rights, if applied with no respect for them. You’re right that training requirements could be ridiculously high or low.

vandal, that’s a good question. It’s hard to define “gun” in a way that satisfies everyone. I was hoping to finesse this issue and thus leave it to the legislatures, but that raises other questions. After all, the legislation can be pretty convoluted … would it be reasonable to exclude 20mm anti-material rifles from the definition of guns? They already are, more or less … any weapon with a bore greater than 0.5" in diameter must be registered as a destructive device ($200 tax), unless it passes ATF’s sporting purposes test. 10-gauge is just a few micrometers shy of 20mm, and well over .50-caliber in any case (as are all the “gauge” shotguns in the first place), so shotguns are only untaxed and unregistered because of some (quite reasonable) laxness on the part of ATF…? Basically, I’m saying that defining “gun” is a snakepit, and I don’t blame anyone for trying to stay out of it.

15

Thanx for correcting my spelling. Back to 3rd grade for me. :frowning:

16

The 2nd Amendment does not guarantee the right of the States to have militia. it says that a well-regulated militia is necessary, then goes on to guarantee the rights of THE PEOPLE to bear arms (with no restriction on type of arms).

(capitalization and bolding are mine, of course)

To paraphrase somebody on another gun-control thread somewhere around here (I forget who. sorry), it could just as easily have said “A box of froot-loops, being a fun part of this complete breakfast, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” without losing its meaning. the important part is the main clause of the sentence: “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.”

If you question whose right is protected, notice that it says specifically “THE PEOPLE”. That’s the same “the people” that appears in
[ul]
[li]The Preamble (“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union…”)[/li][li]The First Amendment ("…the right of the people peaceably to assemble…")[/li][li]The Fourth Amendment (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”)[/li][li]The Ninth Amendment (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”)[/li][li]The Tenth Amendment (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”)[/li][/ul]

All of these are very clearly speaking of us, the people of the U.S. Not the States (you’ll notice the States were mentioned specifically and separately).

And I object to any regulation of a right intended to protect us against an overzealous government being put in the hands of that same government. That’s like asking the neighborhood bully to hold onto your lunch money so it won’t get stolen.

17

Joe Cool: Let me humbly say that I do not wish to infringe on your right to bear fruit loops.

that said, I do indeed think the beginning of that sentence changes its meaning. Even as a gun owner, I do not think that I constitute in and of myself a well-organized militia. Now if I get a bunch of drinking buddies together with our automatic rifles to shoot dinner plates, NOW are we a well organized religion? OF course not. If you remove the bold print, I think it is pretty clear that the 2nd amendment is suggesting that an organized citizen’s milita, independent of the federal government (ala the Minutemen, or the National Guard) is necessary to resist government should it proove to be hostile to freedom. I think this makes sense, but it sounds to me that you gotta actually join a well organized militia in order to get that right. Driving down to Tim’s Gun-o-Matic and purchasing your first UZI does not consititute joining a well organized milita.

18

I’ve got a few points to make so I’ll start with the most important one:

  1. “The Turner Diaries” for those who haven’t heard of it is a fictional story about an ultra-racist neo-nazi terrorist group called The Organization. This book was the inspiration for Timothy McVeigh to blow up the Oklahoma City building, and it inspired another group calling itself The Order (in the book The Order is the core of The Orginization) to rob armored cars and eventually shoot it out to the death with police. It is the neo-nazi bible, every right-wing skin-head racist in America has read this book. In the book every racist in America is driven to action by one defining event: the confiscation of all privately owned fire arms. At that moment every gun owner in America becomes a criminal and widespread terrorism follows. Confiscation of firearms is the event that neo-nazis across America are waiting for to begin the RaHoWa (the racial holy war) so keep it in mind whenever gun control legislation is being debated.
  2. I know this sounds bad but 95% of the Constitution has been rendered irrelevent by Supreme Court decisions. It doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, only what the the most recent ruling of the Supreme Court says that it says. The Supreme Court has ruled that the states can regulate guns all they want because there is no individual right to own firearms. I’m sorry I can’t quote the case history since I’m not a lawyer, perhaps some Doper out there could help us. I believe the only court case that you’re sure to win is if the federal gov’t passed a law to disarm a state’s National Guard. The Supreme Court would have no choice but to overturn said law based on the second amendment. Any other gun control law could be upheld by the SC.
  3. I am tired of hearing how the framers of the Constitution were pro gun ownership and beleived that keeping the public armed was the only way to insure democracy, this is total BS. The Bill of Rights was written to restrain the federal gov’t it was not intended to restrain the states. As evidence of this it wasn’t until a Supreme Court ruling forced them to, did the state courts provide a jury trial and a lawyer for every defendent (prior to the SC’s ruling the only time a defendant was guaranteed a lawyer and a jury was if he was being tried in a federal court or if he was charged with a capital offense in a state court). The second amendment was written to insure that the federal gov’t could not terrorize a state by disarming it’s militia and leaving it defensless against a revolt (which were more common in colonial times). Thus, the second amendment insures the state’s ability to crush a revolt not a revolt’s ability to crush the state.
    I apologize for the length of my post but this debate always gets me going.
19

SPOOFE Bo Diddly wrote:

Actually, no – Federal training mandates are permissible because of a different part of the Constitution.

Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, which states that Congress has the power:

See? Congress gets to say how the militia is to be trained, but the States have to actually do the training.

20

Ah, Tracer, I was going on just the 2nd amendment. There’re articles and clauses up the yin-yang out there to make everything too confusing.

To address the “militia” question in the Constitution, I turn good ol’ Webster (his second college edition):

mi-li-tia…:

  1. a)orig., any military force b) later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called out in time of emergency
  2. in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not already members of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia (Webster’s emphasis, not mine)

What does this mean? Just about everyone’s a militiaman. Therefore, the Federal Government has no right to infringe anyone’s gun usage. Note that the Constitution states no difference between organized and unorganized militias. Well-regulated, yes.

To address the “What’s a gun?” issue… the same dictionary has a very well-rounded definition of a gun (anything that looks like a gun to anything that sounds like a gun, basically… not their definition, of course). However, I know that civilians are not allowed to own artillery, like grenades or mortars, which would explain the limited ownership of those particular items.

Personally, I think current gun laws blatantly violate the Constitution. Should this be tolerated? Of course not. Is it tolerated? Of course it is. ::sigh::… people are stupid…