I’m getting tired of this sub-thread but this latest from you is too interesting to ignore.
Forget for a moment that we’re speaking of guns or amendments; let it be an abstract discussion of widgets and gidgets. By your admission, your view of the conversation is
Septimus says Something true about widgets.
Lumpy infers (without evidence and without revealing this inference publicly) that Septimus wants to use the fact about widgets to derive a conclusion about gidgets. Lumpy disapproves of that conclusion so misconstrues Septimus’ statement about widgets … and therefore starts attacking a statement about widgets that septimus did NOT make.
Septimus clarifies his statement about widgets.
Lumpy ignores the clarification and continues to rebut the statement septimus did NOT make.
Septimus carefully uses red bold-face to explain the difference between the statement he made and the statement he did NOT make.
Finally, Lumpy confesses that widgets are of no interest to him — he was concerned with gidgets.
Is that about right?
To answer the words you finally put in my mouth (“and therefore we’re justified in simply agreeing to overlook that silly archaic provision”) — No. I wish everybody on both sides of the political divide would just shut up about guns. When I get involved in a thread like this it’s just because the utter illogic of gunnists amuses me and symbolizes American political confusions. Case in point: this sub-thread.
I’ve been bringing up state constitutional rights to bear arms forever on these boards and have been mostly ignored. But even if the 2nd Amendment went away those state rights would remain. They do not draw their power from the 2nd Amendment.
Fact is, far, far more pro-gun rights court rulings have been based on state constitutional rights to bear arms than on the 2nd Amendment.
And many of those state constitutional rights were written during the early years of this country, even pre-dating the NRA’s influence.
*“This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
*
~ Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution
Unless there was a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that specifically stated there is no right to bear arms, those state constitutional rights would still be valid. The supremacy clause is only about laws/rights that are contrary to the U.S. Constitution, not in addition to it.
Simply repealing the 2nd doesn’t repeal the right per the 9th. There’d have to be other Amendments or legislation. Lots of state constitutions have additional rights that aren’t in the U.S. Constitution and they are completely valid.
This is true. There are state constitutions and laws that explicitly recognize a right to education, a right of privacy, a right to not be fired for off-job political speech, etc. There are also rights recognized in common law such as self-defense itself or freedom of peaceful movement in public space.
People on BOTH sides of the political spectrum often commit the fallacy of thinking that if the federal constitution does not explicitly mention something, it does not or can not exist. The 9th and 10th amendments express the contrary.
All you need is for the door to be opened to allow gun regulation. The 2nd amendment’s plain language would allow for that regulation so gun right’s advocates have simply decided to pretend something the constitution says isn’t really there and then add in some other stuff that truly is not in the text to make it what they want. That is the state of affairs today but it could change somewhere down the road (not likely in my lifetime but someday).
It is not just me who thinks so. Heller was a 5-4 decision and Steven’s strongly worded dissent considered Scalia’s opinion an "overwrought and novel description” of the 2nd amendment.
Gun right’s activists are one judge away from a different decision which is one reason why the republicans stole a nomination from the democrats recently.
If the supreme court allows tighter regulation then all the state constitutions in the world won’t help. Those only protect gun owners from state and local laws restricting guns. Federal law preempts those and frankly gun control on anything less than a national level is near worthless anyway.
At the time, it was perfectly legal to own a cannon, even though the navy was wooden. That meant private citizens could own weaponry capable of seriously damaging or sinking a naval vessel. That’d be like owning an Exocet missile today.
Btw, you can still legally own and even fire cannons and other artillery, with the right registration. But they were an actual military threat back then, and still legal.
You think you will find protection under the 9th amendment because the federal government cannot regulate things not explicitly mentioned in the constitution?
I’m sure that will come as news to the federal government…good luck with that.
And a right to self defense or freedom of peaceful movement in public space says exactly zero about your right to own a gun.
So your contention is, as soon as the 2nd Amendment is repealed, sans any other legislation or constitutional amendment, the right to bear arms immediately ceases even in the states that have such a right in their constitutions.
If that’s the case, then rights already currently found in state constitutions are void because the don’t appear in the U.S. Constitution? What are you basing this on?
I don’t think that’s what he’s saying. He’s saying if the 2nd were either eliminated or interpreted to allow additional gun control, then if said additional gun control measures were passed at the federal level it would preempt state constitutional protections. That’s probably correct as a matter of law.
Of course the presumption is that in repeal or defanging of the Amendment, it would not be left to be a matter of the Federal level withdrawing and each state doing its own thing with some banning altogether while others stay as they are, but that the pro-control side just can’t wait to pass the most restrictive measures imaginable nationwide as soon as there’s constitutional cover (and SCOTUS does not rule that somewhere in the penumbrae of constitutional law something means that yes you may restrict but not that much).
Have you suffered your little children today so that they will come unto Christ? Not too severely, just a spanking should do. :rolleyes:
Here is how Alexander Hamilton, one of the people who was there at the time defined “well-regulated” (The Federalist #29):
What practical meaning would the second half of the amendment- “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”- have if guns could be “regulated” as in “regulated out of existence”?
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; except for weapons of mass destruction, explosive devices, full-automatic firearms, assault weapons (see list), high-capacity magazines, any ammunition subsequently redefined as ‘armor-piercing’ by a bureaucracy’s policy orders, concealed carry, and any handgun not kept locked and unloaded with the ammunition stored separately. Oh, except for government troops, police, and rich and influential peoples’ security guards- it’s ok for them.”
Only someone wholly committed to the collectivist interpretation of the Second Amendment could not see that as a mockery of a guaranteed right.
Who said “regulated out of existence”? Only a complete repeal of the 2nd amendment could start to accomplish that but I have not been talking about repeal. I have been talking about the interpretation of the amendment as it is.
I thought you did, when you said that the Second could be interpreted to mean that the government has full authority to enact gun control laws. Or to ask it a different way, what gun restrictions do you believe the government couldn’t pass by your interpretation?