Is it time to amend the 2nd Amendment?

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:35:52 -0500

Instead of using laws and executive action to eat away at constitutional rights, should the POTUS simply propose an amendment? Not exactly sure what the right answer is but I would like to know my brothers and sister in arms' opinion.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 23 at 2016 6:46 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:46:31 -0500

What possible Amendment would be considered "acceptable" to both sides of the issue?

The first president to suggest an outright "revision" to the 2a (or any of the Protections offered in the Bill of Rights) will be the first president to find out what it's like to be executed by the collective People. There's not enough military to stop the will of the People for that transgression.

Response by TSgt Kenneth Ellis made Feb 23 at 2016 6:48 PM

TSgt Kenneth Ellis — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:48:04 -0500

That would be to much work for Obama. He is still pissed off because Justice Scalia got in the democrats way of redefining the 2nd amendment.

Response by LTC Yinon Weiss made Feb 23 at 2016 6:51 PM

LTC Yinon Weiss — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:51:11 -0500

I agree that laws and executive action should not eat away at Constitutional rights. However, odds of getting a 2/3rd supermajority of Congress and 3/4th of the States to agree on any change is politically improbable. Furthermore, with the Supreme Court already ruling in the Heller case that the 2nd Amendment covers individual rights to keep and bear arms, and providing some good guidance, I don't know what value an amendment would do. At this point, implementation of the 2nd Amendment is in the hands of the courts. The 2nd Amendment has been sufficiently affirmed by the Supreme Court.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 6:54 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:54:24 -0500

No one on either side of the issue wants to see their proposed Constitutional Amendment go down in flames, which it is sure to do.
No way it gets through the House with a 2/3 majority, nor the Senate.
No way it gets 3/4 of state legislatures to ratify it.
No way it happens.
But I invite the President to try. It would be great political theater, and actually be Constitutional.

Response by SFC Justin Scott made Feb 23 at 2016 8:00 PM

SFC Justin Scott — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:00:37 -0500

The answer to this question transcends the 2A! Instead of using executive actions and laws to eat away at ANY constitutional right, amendments should be proposed. That's the problem, too many people want to try and either ignore or circumvent the Constitution. The founding fathers gave us the ability to amend it for a reason. All of these people saying "the constitution is outdated" need to go back and take a civics / US Government class because the Constitution should never be outdated!

Response by Cpl Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 23 at 2016 8:34 PM

Cpl Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 20:34:25 -0500

No!

Response by COL Jon Thompson made Feb 23 at 2016 9:15 PM

COL Jon Thompson — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:15:57 -0500

I believe our Founding Fathers made the Constitution difficult to amend for a reason so that the current waves of public opinion would not subject it to constant change (although that failed with the 18th Amendment). I don't see any situation where the wording of the 2nd Amendment would change. I think the President realizes that. Politicians opposed to gun ownership will look at other means including nominating anti-2A judges, severe taxes on firearms and bullets, requiring technology that is too expensive, suing gun manufacturers, etc. So they can say they support the 2nd Amendment but do end runs around it to restrict it by "legal" means.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Feb 23 at 2016 9:29 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:29:07 -0500

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member, you may enjoy this conversation: https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/does-the-second-amendment-need-to-be-amended

Does the Second Amendment need to be Amended? | RallyPoint

There's been a lot of debate about firearms and firearm ownership recently. I've been a part of a lot of it. I think one thing that is achingly necessary is some close reading of the Second Amendment itself. I slapped together a powerpoint for my sister a few years ago on the topic, and will post the text here with the title slide as an image (because it outlines the argument.) 2. Inherent Right to Self Defense All persons entitled to defend...

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Feb 23 at 2016 10:06 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:06:14 -0500

The President can use his "bully pulpit" to campaign for an Amendment to the Constitution, but the Constitution provides for just two methods of initiating an Amendment: In Congress or a congress of the states. However, he could simply issue one of his Executive orders and see if he gets away with it, which raises an interesting question. Now, I'm not a practicing attorney, just a student of law. We'll need some of our RP members who are attorneys to respond with more authority. There is a rule in equity that a right not exercised may be lost. Basically, my question is that as various governments federal and state have been infringing on our right to bear arms and we haven't beaten them back energetically, could we lose the ability to enforce the 2nd Amendment? Thus, the President could issue an executive order to seize privately owned weapons or restrict their sale, or whatever, and when we attempted to stop him in the courts, we could find that we have lost the right.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laches_(equity)

Laches (equity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laches (/ˈlætʃᵻz/, LA-chəz, like "latches"; /ˈleɪtʃᵻz/, LAY-chəz; Law French: "remissness", "dilatoriness," from Old French laschesse) refers to a lack of diligence and activity in making a legal claim, or moving forward with legal enforcement of a right, in particular with regard to equity; hence, it is an unreasonable delay that can be viewed as prejudicing the opposing [defending] party. When asserted in litigation, it is an equity defense,...

Response by CPT Bruce Rodgers made Feb 23 at 2016 10:40 PM

CPT Bruce Rodgers — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:40:29 -0500

The founding fathers didn't put the second amendment in to protect hunters, it's there to prevent tyirany, read the federalist papers it's pretty clear what the intent was

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 23 at 2016 11:06 PM

COL Charles Williams — Tue, 23 Feb 2016 23:06:05 -0500

No it should not. First of all... Many people that cite it, don't even know what is actually says.....

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

How would propose we amend our Constitution? Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member

I am not a gun lover, or a gun nut. But, I do believe our constitution is fine as is. I just don't think when it was penned, it was not intended to cover all the bases we have expanded to in this modern era. No one envisioned concealed carry, repeating rifles, magazine fed weapons, semi and automatic weapons, belt feed weapons... etc. We no longer rely on the local militia for security, nor do we all need guns to be ready for the call to arms... We have a very mature security apparatus at the local, state and federal level; hence state security. Nevertheless, I believe we all have the right keep and bear arms... and she keep them (not be infringed).

That said... I also don't believe restricting, controlling guns, magazine capacity, ammo, etc. will have any impact whatsoever on crime; assuming that is the reason for change.

I am from the NY metro area where guns are highly controlled, and crime continues/increases. I now live in rural Missouri, and everyone has guns, and many carry them. Crime here is nothing like the metropolitan areas where guns are strictly controlled. In these parts, you never know what you will come across wandering onto someone's property or into one's residence; that is a huge deterrent I believe. In rural areas, for the record, calling 911 for a potential crime of violence, can mean waiting for a very long time for 50 to arrive.

Amending the constitution will do little to impact the issues, our elected leaders are trying to impact. Even if no citizen has a gun... the evil doers will still get them.

Response by PV2 Scott Goodpasture made Feb 24 at 2016 12:25 AM

PV2 Scott Goodpasture — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 00:25:25 -0500

What part of the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is so goddam hard to understand anyway? If it's so confusing for them they are in the wrong business

Response by 1stLt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2016 8:14 AM

1stLt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:14:45 -0500

There should be an amendment, and our culture needs to change as well. Over 10000 people died as a result of gun violence in the USA last year. That's a small town worth of people gone. If 10000 people died as a result of Bird Flu this country would be in a panic, both liberal and conservative. I don't see the same thing happening with gun violence.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2016 8:25 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:25:50 -0500

The constitution and bill of rights are not "living and breathing" documents. The founders meant for them to be taken as literal as can be. If the 2nd amendment becomes ammended expect every other one of your rights to be in jeopardy as well.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2016 8:31 AM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:31:26 -0500

Rally Point, lets expand the right to bear arms beyond guns. What about owning other types of weapons? What about arms in the cyber domain? Can you "fire back" at cyber criminals to protect your rights? Just stirring the pot. Like to know your thoughts :-)

Response by SCPO Joshua I made Feb 24 at 2016 8:43 AM

SCPO Joshua I — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:43:52 -0500

No.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2016 8:57 AM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 08:57:52 -0500

2nd Amendment was made to keep people armed in case the government tried to oppress the people. Its is starting to get there. But if we are thinking about banning firearms, I vote we ban forks for making people fat, pencils/pens/keyboards for misspelled words, speaking cause words hurt, cars because they cause speeding, alcohol because it gets you drunk (prohibition failed....), and knives cause the stab people. Guns do not kill people, husbands that come home early do.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 24 at 2016 9:49 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 09:49:33 -0500

There is no way of passing an amendment through congress or the states so they need to rely on reinterpreting the constitution as a matter of practicality. Heller vs. DC is a very scary read.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Feb 24 at 2016 10:01 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 10:01:57 -0500

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you have an issue with? Executive Orders carry no force of law when it is tantamount to making law by executive action. The 2nd Amendment was put in place to keep check on a tyrannical government run amok. This administration has shown repeatedly it has no respect for the Constitution or the rule of law. The 2nd Amendment is fine just the way it has been for the last 239 + years.

Response by SSgt Brad Ball made Feb 24 at 2016 4:57 PM

SSgt Brad Ball — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 16:57:15 -0500

Leave the 2nd Amendment alone. Focus on the real problem Mental Health. Spend the money on helping the person that uses the gun as a way out of their mental condition.

Response by SPC Andrew Griffin made Feb 24 at 2016 7:28 PM

SPC Andrew Griffin — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:28:27 -0500

I strongly believe it should be considered! But it should be done with WISDOM! NO decision should be made out of the FLESH!

Response by MSgt Mike Ruikka made Feb 24 at 2016 7:42 PM

MSgt Mike Ruikka — Wed, 24 Feb 2016 19:42:39 -0500

A new amendment would probably not pass. And by changing the 2nd, which by the way, protects all the others in the bill of rights, is the quickest way to lose all of our rights to a tyrannical egomaniac, bound and determined to destroy the Constitution.