Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

EMNofSeattle · Dec 4, 2014

This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

Article 2
1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.

Bigfoot 88 · Dec 5, 2014

I prefer to limit the national government to it's designated powers (assuming we agree to limit it) and leave out a Bill of Rights altogether.

Jango · Dec 5, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

Article 2
1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.

While I like some of it, there are other parts that are troubling, namely section #2.

'Regulations' & 'adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect' is extremely dangerous vernacular to have attached to a Constitutional value of the right to bear arms. Regulated and enforced by whom? Adjudicated to be a danger or mentally defect by whom? What kind of criminal convictions?

Jerry · Dec 5, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

Article 2
1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.

Counter proposal: "Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

PirateMk1 · Dec 5, 2014

Jerry said:
Counter proposal: "Congress shall make no law respecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

The congress, the states, or any other government entity, may make no law respecting the right of the people, and the states to keep and bear arms. There is one exception. The congress and ONLY the congress may restrict certain types of arms by law specifically weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear type bombs, exceptionally lethal chemicals, and exceptionally lethal biological weapons. Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant. They must identify the particular arms type closely, and the law may not go into effect without 3/4s vote by congress with a presidential signature and ratification of 3/4's of the states of the union. Further these restrictions will continually sunset every 10 years. In any case personal arms types in common use by militaries shall not be any way restricted except by jury trial.

Jerry · Dec 5, 2014

PirateMk1 said:
The congress, the states, or any other government entity, may make no law respecting the right of the people, and the states to keep and bear arms. There is one exception. The congress and ONLY the congress may restrict certain types of arms by law specifically weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear type bombs, exceptionally lethal chemicals, and exceptionally lethal biological weapons. Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant. They must identify the particular arms type closely, and the law may not go into effect without 3/4s vote by congress with a presidential signature and ratification of 3/4's of the states of the union. Further these restrictions will continually sunset every 10 years. In any case personal arms types in common use by militaries shall not be any way restricted except by jury trial.

I don't see where I gave room for exceptions.

This thread is about the text of the amendment itself, and as you can see I very clearly did not include anything about WMDs in the text of the Amendment.

Everything you're talking about revolves around the range and scope of the right I'm talking about. SCUTUS will need to chime in as it did with the Heller decision and inform everyone that WMDs are the equivalent of yelling 'fire' in a theater and thus are beyond the right to keep and bear arms.

The WMD issue is a simple matter. My wording of the text is to ward against incremental erosion through assault-weapon bans, machine gun bans, NICS checks, the need to have a permit, etc.

Once you call something an "exception", you open the door to all "exceptions" and in a couple hundred years the right is whittled down to single-shot shotguns strictly for sport.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 5, 2014

Now we are getting far off in the weeds. I think my definition of arms clearly excludes weapons of mass distruction, as all existing WMD platforms, require multiple people to effectively use.

Jerry · Dec 5, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
Now we are getting far off in the weeds. I think my definition of arms clearly excludes weapons of mass distruction, as all existing WMD platforms, require multiple people to effectively use.

Your definition of arms includes suitcase nukes and all manor of missiles and explosives which one person can deploy such as stinger missiles and hand grenades. Check yourself before criticizing others.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 5, 2014

Jerry said:
Your definition of arms includes suitcase nukes and all manor of missiles and explosives which one person can deploy such as stinger missiles and hand grenades. Check yourself before criticizing others.

But not a nuclear weapons system, at least not a western developed one they require authorization from a commander to use, and multiple people to arm, that section can be further clarified, but making 15 lines of text about WMDs when no one in their right mind is advocating unfettered ownership of suitcase nukes is unessecary. We can already technically legally own grenades and missiles....

American · Dec 5, 2014

I can see that things are going well here. :lol:

Jerry · Dec 5, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
But not a nuclear weapons system, at least not a western developed one they require authorization from a commander to use, and multiple people to arm, that section can be further clarified, but making 15 lines of text about WMDs when no one in their right mind is advocating unfettered ownership of suitcase nukes is unessecary. We can already technically legally own grenades and missiles....

The common person cannot own grenades and missiles.

AlbqOwl · Dec 5, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

Article 2
1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.

One of the problems we have had with the existing Constitution was whether those provisions intended to apply to the federal government would also be enforceable within the various states. States rights become blurred when states are forced by government regulation or the courts to comply with federal policy.

So would a 'second amendment' clause as suggested here apply only to the federal government? Or will it be a universal law that states and local communities would not be able to override? Would it apply in every place including bars, schools, courthouses, etc. where firearms are usually banned? Or would there be exclusions permitted?

This is where we have to be really careful. I strongly support the federal government being prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. But I also believe strongly in self governance, and if the local community doesn't want guns, it shouldn't have to allow them.

paddymcdougall · Dec 5, 2014

EMNofSeattle said:
This is likely to be a major sticking point, and where I will depart from other liberal minded individuals.

Anyway this is my proposed text for a right to bear arms provision

Article 2
1)the right of the individual to bear arms in defense of himself and of the state and for hunting and lawful recreation shall not be abridged
A) "Abridged " is defined as any law, regulation or scheme of laws and regulations likely to discourage an individual from choosing to exercise the rights of this article
B) "Arms " means any device intended for use as a weapon that is capable of being employed by a single person
2) nothing in this article shall be construed as prohibiting regulations on the commercial sale or criminal use, or possession by individuals adjudicated as a danger to others either by criminal conviction or mental defect, provided said regulations do not violate section 1 of this article.

I was going to say this is decent, but I think it's a little broad.

How about "shall not be abridged except as needed for safety of the people in the country" or something like that?

And the abridged clause is awfully broad - could someone say taxing the sale of a gun is discouraging someone from choosing to get it?

I think background laws, trigger locks, and other safety features are reasonable, for example. I think not allowing someone to buy more than 1 or 2 guns a month is reasonable. But this abridged definition might open up to anarchy pretty much.

gdgyva · Dec 5, 2014

sorry......

but if we are going to write a new constitution, and a new bill of rights.....

this is one of the areas where there will have to be some changes

i have zero issue with any citizen owning guns.....but lets make it reasonable, shall we

1. somehow, someway we need to make sure we can get guns away from people that have KNOWN psychological issues.....if you have been determined to suffer from schizophrenia, or a number of other illnesses, do we really want guns around you? yes....it will have to be debated, and some people will want more restrictions, and some others will want none.....maybe we can meet in the middle and maybe save a few lives

2. i dont want to tread on the militias, or some of the other groups....but is there a number of weapons that any one individual should own? not a deal breaker for me, but i think it should be up for discussion

3. i would love to eliminate automatic weapons.....i dont think it is possible, but it is on my wish list

i dont think there is any need for every gun to be registered.....i know that is a big thing....

again....dont want to take away your guns......but modifying the law slightly to keep them out of the hands of crazy people seems like a good idea to me

vasuderatorrent · Dec 5, 2014

PirateMk1 said:
The congress, the states, or any other government entity, may make no law respecting the right of the people, and the states to keep and bear arms. There is one exception. The congress and ONLY the congress may restrict certain types of arms by law specifically weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear type bombs, exceptionally lethal chemicals, and exceptionally lethal biological weapons. Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant. They must identify the particular arms type closely, and the law may not go into effect without 3/4s vote by congress with a presidential signature and ratification of 3/4's of the states of the union. Further these restrictions will continually sunset every 10 years. In any case personal arms types in common use by militaries shall not be any way restricted except by jury trial.

I like it a lot. I think it would be reasonable to change, "Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant." Just change the 1000 to a more reasonable number like 10 or 20.

vasuderatorrent · Dec 5, 2014

Jerry said:
The common person cannot own grenades and missiles.

Maybe not but it is not forbidden in the constitution.

vasuderatorrent · Dec 5, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
One of the problems we have had with the existing Constitution was whether those provisions intended to apply to the federal government would also be enforceable within the various states. States rights become blurred when states are forced by government regulation or the courts to comply with federal policy.

So would a 'second amendment' clause as suggested here apply only to the federal government? Or will it be a universal law that states and local communities would not be able to override? Would it apply in every place including bars, schools, courthouses, etc. where firearms are usually banned? Or would there be exclusions permitted?

This is where we have to be really careful. I strongly support the federal government being prohibited from infringing on the right of the people to bear arms. But I also believe strongly in self governance, and if the local community doesn't want guns, it shouldn't have to allow them.

I personally think that states should be forbidden to make laws regarding the bearing of arms. If a certain weapon is unwise for Louisiana then it is equally unwise for Connecticut. The federal or national government should be the only body to rule on matters of arms.

paddymcdougall · Dec 5, 2014

gdgyva said:
sorry......

but if we are going to write a new constitution, and a new bill of rights.....

this is one of the areas where there will have to be some changes

i have zero issue with any citizen owning guns.....but lets make it reasonable, shall we

1. somehow, someway we need to make sure we can get guns away from people that have KNOWN psychological issues.....if you have been determined to suffer from schizophrenia, or a number of other illnesses, do we really want guns around you? yes....it will have to be debated, and some people will want more restrictions, and some others will want none.....maybe we can meet in the middle and maybe save a few lives

2. i dont want to tread on the militias, or some of the other groups....but is there a number of weapons that any one individual should own? not a deal breaker for me, but i think it should be up for discussion

3. i would love to eliminate automatic weapons.....i dont think it is possible, but it is on my wish list

i dont think there is any need for every gun to be registered.....i know that is a big thing....

again....dont want to take away your guns......but modifying the law slightly to keep them out of the hands of crazy people seems like a good idea to me

Maybe - as I think someone suggested earlier - the thing to do is to not put guns into the constitution. We don't have a constitutional right to drive a car or to own knives or other things. Why guns?

EMNofSeattle · Dec 5, 2014

paddymcdougall said:
I was going to say this is decent, but I think it's a little broad.

How about "shall not be abridged except as needed for safety of the people in the country" or something like that?

And the abridged clause is awfully broad - could someone say taxing the sale of a gun is discouraging someone from choosing to get it?

I think background laws, trigger locks, and other safety features are reasonable, for example. I think not allowing someone to buy more than 1 or 2 guns a month is reasonable. But this abridged definition might open up to anarchy pretty much.

No sales tax would not be abridgment. If a state like say my state,Washington, has a sales tax that is effectively 9% on all consumer products, it's just sales tax, however a fee like New York city which charges $350 just to apply for a permit to purchase one, would certainly be abridgment under this article, The one or two done a month law is made to discourage collectors and would be abridgment, in my opinion the possible penalties of violation should be considered in whether a certain law is abridgment, if the trigger lock violation is a ticket, probably not, if it's a felony then absolutely. It would be up to a judge to determine the exact nature of abridgment.

PirateMk1 · Dec 5, 2014

vasuderatorrent said:
I like it a lot. I think it would be reasonable to change, "Mass destruction defined as the ability to kill 1000 people simultaneously or so close to simultaneously as to be irrelevant." Just change the 1000 to a more reasonable number like 10 or 20.

Then you classify grenades and such as weapons of mass destruction. Satchel charges and the like as well.

EMNofSeattle · Dec 5, 2014

paddymcdougall said:
Maybe - as I think someone suggested earlier - the thing to do is to not put guns into the constitution. We don't have a constitutional right to drive a car or to own knives or other things. Why guns?

If you read my article it does apply to knives, I wrote this to apply to arms, including edged weapons, clubs, pikes, etc . Some states like california make it illegal to carry a club to defend yourself. I want to end that too. New York City has made an industry out of arresting people for carrying ordinary pocket knives

vasuderatorrent · Dec 5, 2014

Let's discuss the right to bear arms.

29A said:
My ideas are important too.

AGENT J said:
My ideas are important too.

Amandi said:
My ideas are important too.

americanwoman said:
My ideas are important too.

APACHERAT said:
My ideas are important too.

azgreg said:
My ideas are important too.

BrewerBob said:
My ideas are important too.

Buck Ewer said:
My ideas are important too.

Chantal said:
My ideas are important too.

chromium said:
My ideas are important too.

Citizen.Seven said:
My ideas are important too.

CycloneWanderer said:
My ideas are important too.

DaveFagan said:
My ideas are important too.

Declan said:
My ideas are important too.

DifferentDrummr said:
My ideas are important too.

Geoist said:
My ideas are important too.

Grand Mal said:
My ideas are important too.

grip said:
My ideas are important too.

hallam said:
My ideas are important too.

Hamster Buddha said:
My ideas are important too.

Hatuey said:
My ideas are important too.

haymarket said:
My ideas are important too.

iliveonramen said:
My ideas are important too.

imagep said:
My ideas are important too.

Kal'Stang said:
My ideas are important too.

Korimyr the Rat said:
My ideas are important too.

Kushinator said:
My ideas are important too.

Luftwaffe said:
My ideas are important too.

mak2 said:
My ideas are important too.

ModerateGOP said:
My ideas are important too.

Moot said:
My ideas are important too.

Navy Pride said:
My ideas are important too.

NIMBY said:
My ideas are important too.

Ockham said:
My ideas are important too.

Paleocon said:
My ideas are important too.

Poiuy said:
My ideas are important too.

Psychoclown said:
My ideas are important too.

rabbitcaebannog said:
My ideas are important too.

radioman said:
My ideas are important too.

RedAkston said:
My ideas are important too.

rjay said:
My ideas are important too.

roguenuke said:
My ideas are important too.

sookster said:
My ideas are important too.

Superfly said:
My ideas are important too.

TeleKat said:
My ideas are important too.

The Mark said:
My ideas are important too.

TheDemSocialist said:
My ideas are important too.

Threegoofs said:
My ideas are important too.

TurtleDude said:
My ideas are important too.

Unitedwestand13 said:
My ideas are important too.

Unrepresented said:
My ideas are important too.

Visbek said:
My ideas are important too.

whysoserious said:
My ideas are important too.

Wiggen said:
My ideas are important too.

Your Star said:
My ideas are important too.

Declan · Dec 5, 2014

Bigfoot 88 said:
I prefer to limit the national government to it's designated powers (assuming we agree to limit it) and leave out a Bill of Rights altogether.

Yeah I won't be supporting any right to bear arms for sure.

AlbqOwl · Dec 5, 2014

vasuderatorrent said:
I personally think that states should be forbidden to make laws regarding the bearing of arms. If a certain weapon is unwise for Louisiana then it is equally unwise for Connecticut. The federal or national government should be the only body to rule on matters of arms.

You'll definitely have a battle on that one. The Founders then and we constitutional originalists now were of pretty much one mind that when the government has all the power, physically, legally, and effectively, the people have no rights whatsoever apart from what those in government say they can have.

Goshin · Dec 5, 2014

AlbqOwl said:
You'll definitely have a battle on that one. The Founders then and we constitutional originalists now were of pretty much one mind that when the government has all the power, physically, legally, and effectively, the people have no rights whatsoever apart from what those in government say they can have.

And why should moving to, or travelling through, another state or town infringe upon a basic right that I enjoy at home?

It shouldn't.

Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

Bigfoot 88

Jango

Jerry

PirateMk1

Jerry

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

Jerry

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Jerry

AlbqOwl

paddymcdougall

gdgyva

vasuderatorrent

vasuderatorrent

vasuderatorrent

paddymcdougall

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

PirateMk1

EMNofSeattle

No Russian ever called me deplorable

vasuderatorrent

Declan

AlbqOwl

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Pre-convention discussion: bill of rights, right to keep and bear arms

No Russian ever called me deplorable

No Russian ever called me deplorable

No Russian ever called me deplorable

Trump Grump Whisperer

No Russian ever called me deplorable

No Russian ever called me deplorable

Burned Out Ex-Mod

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency