Proposed change to second amendment
Posted by xthinker88 9 years, 4 months ago to Government
I think the author just doesn't get it.
The founders pretty much botched the 2nd Amendment when they added the preamble. As a legal principle, a preamble to a law only ever comes into play for interpreting the law when the main clause of the law is not clearly written. You cannot get more clearly written in the English language than: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Thus the preamble to that clause should never come into play. Just as the preamble to the Constitution is irrelevant to analyzing constitutional issues.
The Pennsylvania Constitution actually did it better:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (Pa. Const. art. I, § 21) (1790).
Of course PA's gun laws violate its own constitution but that is a different issue.
The founders pretty much botched the 2nd Amendment when they added the preamble. As a legal principle, a preamble to a law only ever comes into play for interpreting the law when the main clause of the law is not clearly written. You cannot get more clearly written in the English language than: The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Thus the preamble to that clause should never come into play. Just as the preamble to the Constitution is irrelevant to analyzing constitutional issues.
The Pennsylvania Constitution actually did it better:
The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (Pa. Const. art. I, § 21) (1790).
Of course PA's gun laws violate its own constitution but that is a different issue.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
a natural fact -- humans will defend themselves.
if that involves a threatening glance, a verbal warning,
a fist, a stick, a gun or a pushbutton, defense is an
innate truth. . just shoot straight. . that is gun control. -- j
I may be putting my foot in my mouth because I didn’t read the whole case that you cited in your article. It is really long and I don’t have the time, so I skimmed it then read the judgement. My take from the judgement is that this was an issue of contracts.
Respectfully, I stand by my stance on Citizens United. Limiting the free speech of a corporation is not the same thing as limiting the free speech of the shareholders. The shareholders, as natural people, already have the right of free speech, so giving their corporation the same right is tantamount to letting the shareholders double dip in the social and political arenas.
If corporations are legally considered persons, and these persons are under the control of other persons (the shareholders) then isn’t that the equivalent of slavery? Would it be acceptable for a real-life slave holder to have his slaves vote and then claim fair-play?
Corporations are not Natural Beings. They are legal fictions. As a result, their rights are not the same rights reserved to Natural Beings. Those rights are bestowed by Nature or God (depending on your belief system). The rights of corporations are bestowed by Man and can be as limited as Man chooses. To be correct, corporations have no rights. They only have privileges.
This treatise is “All over the map” in trying to justify removing the right to keep and bear arms.
One of the “popular” arguments he attempts is using the wrong definition of “regulated.”
The word, at that time and in the amendments writing was synonyms to “equipped.” As in “Regulars” being fully outfitted soldiers.
Most significant though is the failure of most people to process the exact meaning of the amendments wording.
The Amendment states a particular reason to not infringe on the addressed right.
The wording acknowledges that right as already existing.
You could repeal the Amendment and that would only result in the need for a militia no longer being a reason not to infringe!
This is not a legal opinion; it is a semantic observation.
As Francisco said "Some day my friend, you will learn that words have exact meanings!"
Federalist #46 is a good read for anybody wanting to understand the second amendment and should be required reading for anybody studying the constitution.
Excellent point about the NRA's position.
I disagree with you on Citizens United (CU). I know this is not a popular position, but CU was based on well established law going back to before the Constitution. The reason corporations have rights is that they are owned by people. In the early 1800s a state essentially tried to make the take over a private university and argued the university (corporation) did not have rights This amounted to theft of the University by the state.
If you care you might want to check out my article on point http://hallingblog.com/corporations-have...
To limit a corporation's right to free speech is the same thing as limiting the right of free speech of the shareholders
Excellent point about preambles and the law. I agree that the founders botch the 2nd Amendment. I read an interesting article about the history of the 2nd amendment and the final wording. According to the article they were trying to combine two concepts, one about self defense and the right to own guns and another, which I don't remember exactly, about militias.
He wants to make sure only the king and his government has firearms. Period. Not serfs like we the people or those who fought against King George's troops. People like Misjustice Stevens need to be retired from the bench.
The problem is, people are twisting that phrase beyond recognition.
He knows that the founding fathers were just a decade and a half away from having overthrown a tyranny.
He knows that the Bill of Rights were added to prevent the government from becoming a tyrannical state.
He knows that by chipping away at the 2nd Amendment, he and his kind move a step closer to again suppressing Americans under the dead weight of another tyranny.
He knows full well what he is doing.
Load more comments...