Are we really just one state away?

[SmarterthanYou]

This could be a chance for us to more heavily fortify the 2nd Amendment, STY!

It could read:

Amendment 2B.

Being as the Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right of every citizen of a free nation, no governmental entity at any level shall pass any law which would in any way infringe, delay, restrict, or deny any citizen their Constitutional Right to Bear any and all Arms of any kind.

it wouldn't last long until enough nanny staters convinced the supreme court that no right is absolute.

It should probably read thus,

The right of any person to keep and bear any and all arms shall not be questioned or restricted in any way, shape, or form.

I still don't think that would stop them though. We would need a supreme court of justices who think like you and I.

 

[Epicurus]

Since apparently there has been some confusion about "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" I went ahead and included all of the usual tactics of infringement by name.

Yeah this should clear a lot of things up.

 

[Epicurus]

I probably also should have called it an "inalienable, natural right of any living person".

 

[Bonestorm]

I probably also should have called it an "inalienable, natural right of any living person".

That would be even better. After all, you have to make sure the criminally insane can get their hands on whatever sort of weapon they can afford.

 

[Epicurus]

That would be even better. After all, you have to make sure the criminally insane can get their hands on whatever sort of weapon they can afford.

Oh absolutely.

Do you deny that it would be a very free society?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

That would be even better. After all, you have to make sure the criminally insane can get their hands on whatever sort of weapon they can afford.

justifiable homicide is alot easier to defend in court.

 

[Epicurus]

This could be a chance for us to more heavily fortify the 2nd Amendment, STY!

It could read:

Amendment 2B.

Being as the Right to Bear Arms is an inalienable right of every citizen of a free nation, no governmental entity at any level shall pass any law which would in any way infringe, delay, restrict, or deny any citizen the free exercise of their Constitutional Right to Bear Arms of any kind whatsoever without restriction.

Bump for the greatest Constitutional Amendment ever.

 

[Damocles]

Bump for the greatest Constitutional Amendment ever.

You'd have to leave room for such things as age appropriate and mentally appropriate limitations.

 

[Epicurus]

Damo do you really think that I would fail to include those provisions because I forgot them?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You'd have to leave room for such things as age appropriate and mentally appropriate limitations.

wouldn't that be best left to family members to deal with? the purpose of a constitution is to provide LIMITED powers to a government, not greater.

 

[Damocles]

wouldn't that be best left to family members to deal with? the purpose of a constitution is to provide LIMITED powers to a government, not greater.

No. Unless you believe that people getting shot is the best limitation of the right.

Once Jeffrey Dahmer is convicted of a felony should he still be allowed to have guns in prison for instance?

In the wording of the "Amendment" as stated, they could not in any way stop him from gaining one, or even suggest a time limit. His mental deviation would assure that he would kill more people given such an opportunity.

Some logical limitations should apply. Maybe not age, but certainly during prison terms, etc.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No. Unless you believe that people getting shot is the best limitation of the right.

Once Jeffrey Dahmer is convicted of a felony should he still be allowed to have guns in prison for instance?

In the wording of the "Amendment" as stated, they could not in any way stop him from gaining one, or even suggest a time limit.

this is not correct, at all. What some people have failed to realize is that by way of the 5th Amendment, it's easy to deny gun rights (any rights actually) to people who are incarcerated, but only so long as they are incarcerated. Once they have done their time, they get their rights back.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

[Damocles]

However, Amendments take precedence. So, stating that you cannot in any way restrict the right in an Amendment would overtake previous Amendments and clauses. So, including it in the Amendment would be wise. You can even mention "Save for the due process as mentioned in Amendment 5" thus ensuring one doesn't lose rights to poorly written law.

 

[Bonestorm]

However, Amendments take precedence. So, stating that you cannot in any way restrict the right in an Amendment would overtake previous Amendments and clauses. So, including it in the Amendment would be wise. You can even mention "Save for the due process as mentioned in Amendment 5" thus ensuring one doesn't lose rights to poorly written law.

Trial and conviction are due process. Restricting gun ownership is part of the punishment independent of incarceration.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

However, Amendments take precedence. So, stating that you cannot in any way restrict the right in an Amendment would overtake previous Amendments and clauses. So, including it in the Amendment would be wise. You can even mention "Save for the due process as mentioned in Amendment 5" thus ensuring one doesn't lose rights to poorly written law.

or simply by using 'all free citizens', therefore excluding incarcerated people because they are not free.

 

[Damocles]

Trial and conviction are due process. Restricting gun ownership is part of the punishment independent of incarceration.

Again, a new Amendment would take precedence over previously written rights. Putting in clauses that point to the other older Amendment ensure such precedence is not mistakenly written into law. Suggesting that "no restriction whatsoever" wouldn't have some question as to "punishment" being a restriction when a new Amendment was passed is unwise, while adding a sentence can avoid foreseen problems.

 

[Damocles]

or simply by using 'all free citizens', therefore excluding incarcerated people because they are not free.

I prefer clear, non-interpretive statements that relate exactly what is meant by the terminology. So that in later years they do not become the subject of some inane ruling in the SCOTUS that allows Jeffrey Buddy to gain access to damaging items.

(Yes, I know I use exaggeration here but reality tells me such attempts to avoid trouble is wise.)

 

[Good Luck]

Again, a new Amendment would take precedence over previously written rights. Putting in clauses that point to the other older Amendment ensure such precedence is not mistakenly written into law. Suggesting that "no restriction whatsoever" wouldn't have some question as to "punishment" being a restriction when a new Amendment was passed is unwise, while adding a sentence can avoid foreseen problems.

It only takes precedence if the language is specific to that in the previous amendment. There are several states (13 I think) who currently deny the right to vote to convicted felons who are still incarcerated. Some of those states extend the prohibition while still on probation.

The constitutionality of those prohibitions has been upheld repeatedly. Yet there are more than one amendment, coming after the 5th amendment, which directly address and guarantee the right to vote. The authority of government to remove rights of citizens through due process - including the right to vote - is constantly upheld, because no amendment has yet stated that due process cannot be used to remove a specific right.