Former Supreme Court Justice Wants To Alter The Second Amendment

bbracken677
reply to post by SWCCFAN

 

First of all...it cannot be done without an amendment passing. I do not see that happening in this instance right now, nor in the near future.

Unless the process gets hijacked.

In which case it will be time to water the tree of liberty once again. (With the blood of tyrants and patriots)

Sadly, in our representative republic, our so called representatives can vote on whatever the heck they want, and however they want, without the backing or permission of the people they claim to represent. As over half our Congress are now millionaires, and as corporations have been given the right to donate unlimited and anonymous money to political action groups, I believe our representatives are not representing us so much anymore as they are the wealthy and the corporations. Because of this, they start to feel paranoid and worry about the ire of the public and may want to take preparatory measures by reducing the public's rights to defend our rights against such tyranny. Changing the second amendment could happen without the backing of the public as there would be no public referendum voted on by the public, only by our representatives in various levels of government. Government appears to be less Of the People, By the People, and For the People than we once thought. It seems to be more a case of Of the People, By the Government, For the Wealthy, the Corporations, and the Politically Well Connected (usually through wealth or family relations).

What difference would it make if anyone changed the Constitution? They don't follow it now. Why would they follow it then? So the tyranny would be legal? They don't care!

This would require a constitutional amendment.

He can propose whatever he wants, I suppose. It would require a constitutional amendment, which is highly unlikely given that 75% of the state legislatures would need to approve it. There's no way 38 of the 50 state legislatures are going to support it. You might have a hard time getting the other 12 out of 50 to support it, honestly.

It would largely be a pointless addition, anyway. Legally, all draft-age males are considered 'unorganized militia', and in an instance such as this, where it could be construed as granting a right, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment likely means that it would have to apply to everyone. And, of course, in the 2008 DC v. Heller case, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of the people in the 2nd Amendment is the same right of the people elsewhere in the Constitution and other amendments. Its an individual right, therefore unconnected to militia service.

But more importantly, it actually doesn't even matter! The 2nd Amendment only protects a right; it doesn't grant or create it. If you make this change, it only protects the right to own a firearm for 'militia' members. Even if you were not a militia member (or even if you repealed the 2nd Amendment totally), you would still have the right to own a firearm that you do right now, until such time as additional laws were passed that restricted that right.

reply to post by SWCCFAN



Yea that reads "ect ect a well regulated militia AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Its a two fold check against the fed or other states going mad.

That comma there is as important as anything. Not the right of the militia alone, nor the state nor the federal government.

Somebody needs to ask one of these dirtbags what their definition of a "free state" is as long as the state controls everything.