National 2nd Amendment rewrite

[DavidA]

The constitution was written over 200 years ago and language has changed. Judges are interpreting the ambiguous language to determine our rights. Most modern laws do not require interpretation by judges for most to understand, e.g., we don't need a judges ruling to interpret a stop sign. The second amendment has been interpreted to allow individual rights but those rights are limited to certain types of weapons. Explosives are generally not allowed, fully automatic weapons are highly regulated, and semi-automatic weapons are partially regulated. The the second amendment does not provide this level of granularity. Can you write a more specific law that requires as little interpretation by a judge as possible while allowing for local variation and future weapons development?

Read More

 

[44Brent]

The Constitution is clear enough that a 5th grade student should be able to understand it. The problem isn't that the Consitution lacks clarity or is ambiguous — the problem is that the people who are supposed to enforce it willfully ignore it. That includes Trump.

When drivers see a speed limit sign that says "40" and they drive 50 mph, does that mean they don't understand what the sign means? Or, is it a case in which they decide that the sign doesn't apply to them and that a little speeding is OK just as long as they don't get caught?

 

[308]

How are semi-autos partially regulated?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Maybe the folks who are having trouble understanding , just what the 2nd Amendment is saying...ought to consult a dictionary....
Its pretty clear in its meaning to me....but then I do know how to read.
Andy

 

[JustSomeGuy]

This came to mind...
The right of the people to keep and bear arms and munitions in any quantity and of any type shall not be infringed.

 

[Alexx1401]

. Can you write a more specific law that requires as little interpretation by a judge as possible while allowing for local variation and future weapons development?

Sadly no. You could write a law saying the sun rises in the east and water is wet. Some judge would have no problem saying this was not what the law said if it helped some agenda. It's why I have been trying to tell people for a long time elections matter. People who either can't be bothered, or worse yet vote for people who are all in on taking rights scream after. When the ones they helped elect put judges in who ignore law, these people scream about "rights" and "they can't do that". All the while watching as it is being done.

 

[308]

Maybe the folks who are having trouble understanding , just what the 2nd Amendment is saying...ought to consult a dictionary....
Its pretty clear in its meaning to me....but then I do know how to read.
Andy

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[DB is Here]

Maybe a class on reading comprehension would be in order.
Seems these dolts want it to say what it does not and don't want it to say what it actually does.

 

[DavidA]

The references used in the second amendment are 200 years old. It is not a love sonnet and the language needs to be refreshed. It was written to be intentionality vague in the 18th century. If the language were obvious then it would not be a judge's ruling that protects an individuals right.

There was no fifth grade in the 18th century.

 

[albin25]

When politicians argue ( with a straight face yet) that they need to know what the definition of, "IS ... is" before they will explain the lie told in answer to a question...
..... how can the Constitution ever be made clearer by adding even more words for them to pretend they don't understand ?


"There are none so blind as those who will not see" **

** hint; has nothing to do specificallly with eyesight.

 

[DB is Here]

The references used in the second amendment are 200 years old. It is not a love sonnet and the language needs to be refreshed. It was written to be intentionality vague in the 18th century. If the language were obvious then it would not be a judge's ruling that protects an individuals right.

There was no fifth grade in the 18th century.

You can try, here's what it would require:
Step 1: Two-thirds of both houses of Congress pass a proposed constitutional amendment. This sends the proposed amendment to the states for ratification.

Step 2: Three-fourths of the states (38 states) ratify the proposed amendment, either by their legislatures or special ratifying conventions.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

The references used in the second amendment are 200 years old. It is not a love sonnet and the language needs to be refreshed. It was written to be intentionality vague in the 18th century. If the language were obvious then it would not be a judge's ruling that protects an individuals right.

There was no fifth grade in the 18th century.

I disagree. I think the language is quite plain and easily understood. In the case of someone having difficulty understanding it, I would simply suggest they avail themself of that wonder known as the Internet. There are easily located copies of documents written by the gentlemen who penned the ammendment and the thought processes surrounding it.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It was written to be intentionality vague in the 18th century.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.
There is nothing intentionally vague about the 2nd Amendment , be it from the 18th century stand point or today's standpoint.

Lets look at the last part , just to keep things simple here...
The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People...you , me ...you know Americans...
Keep......means to have or own
Bear.......means to carry
Arms......means weapons and ammunition also their related accouterments
Infringed... means to actively break the terms of or act so as to limit or undermine

Andy

 

[JustSomeGuy]

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.
There is nothing intentionally vague about the 2nd Amendment , be it from the 18th century stand point or today's standpoint.

Lets look at the last part , just to keep things simple here...
The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Keep . means to have or own
Bear . means to carry
arms , means weapons and ammunition also their related accouterments
infringed , means to actively break the terms of or act so as to limit or undermine

Andy

Bingo! Can't get much more plain than that.

 

[DB is Here]

I disagree wholeheartedly with this statement.
There is nothing intentionally vague about the 2nd Amendment , be it from the 18th century stand point or today's standpoint.

Lets look at the last part , just to keep things simple here...
The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

People...you , me ...you know Americans...
Keep......means to have or own
Bear.......means to carry
Arms......means weapons and ammunition also their related accouterments
Infringed... means to actively break the terms of or act so as to limit or undermine

Andy

Well Regulated-The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

 

[Andy54Hawken]

One could also have been fined if they showed up to Militia Muster with a substandard Arm or lacking enough power and ball.

Ironic how at one time one was encouraged to have a up to date firearm and ammo for it ...now one is criminalized for the same....sigh
Andy

 

[DavidA]

The second amendment was written so that each state rep could go home and explain it as needed to the local population in order to secure agreement. It is intended that local judges interpret the law to local custom. Modern communications and mass media are driving one size fits all movements.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

The second amendment was written so that each state rep could go home and explain it as needed to the local population in order to secure agreement. It is intended that local judges interpret the law to local custom. Modern communications and mass media are driving one size fits all movements.

Can you please cite the source materials for that assertion? Having done an extensive amount of research on the historical documentation surrounding the 2nd amendment, I've never come across anything resembling that.

 

[DavidA]

That's how politics works.

 

[mrblond]

right to bear arms