How would you have written the 2nd Amendment?


tattedupboy

Thank God I'm alive!
I ran into this subject on another forum I frequent and wanted to bring it to USA Carry. Simply put, how would you have written the 2nd Amendment? Personally, I like how the RKBA portion of the Idaho constitution is written. I would have written it that way, with a few changes:

The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by convicted felons or the mentally ill, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the unlawful use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
For reference, the original ratified version reads:
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.

The version passed by Congress reads:
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.


If I were going to amplify this, it would read something like:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, cannot operate with impunity in the absence of martial check from the people. The right of the People to keep, bear and carry Arms openly or privately, whether for self-defense, the procurement of game, recreation, or any other rightful purpose, shall not be infringed in any place.
 

NDS

New member
Congress shall pass no law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.





Then there should have been no problem with incorporation and any gun controls would have required Constitutional Amendment. Entirely different history since 1934!
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
Congress shall pass no law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


Then there should have been no problem with incorporation and any gun controls would have required Constitutional Amendment. Entirely different history since 1934!
One problem: in law, if you say who cannot do something, then it leaves open the door for everyone else but that entity to do it.

Mentioning Congress also implies that it only applies at the federal level. The executive branch, judiciary, and all state and local legislatures, executives and courts at all levels will suddenly think that they can impose de facto anti-gun measures. This has unfortunately happened with the First Amendment to the point where it's just getting ridiculous. Congress can't pass any laws "respecting an establishment of religion", but certainly everyone else will get their thumbs in the pie.
 

sailor

New member
toreskha ---- "...a martial check from the people". You do not understand - The Militia - IS THE PEOPLE! You are confusing the Military, a government controlled body of armed personnel, with the Militia (the whole of the People), which is covered by the Second Amendment (the very essence of the Second Amendment!). Also, "keep, bear and carry arms" is redundant; bear and carry have the same meaning in the current Second Amendment. Ain't debate fun though!
sailor
 

toreskha

Titles are un-American.
toreskha ---- "...a martial check from the people". You do not understand - The Militia - IS THE PEOPLE! You are confusing the Military, a government controlled body of armed personnel, with the Militia (the whole of the People), which is covered by the Second Amendment (the very essence of the Second Amendment!).
At the time, the militia was called to support the skeleton of a military we had in place. For most intents and purposes, the militia was a government controlled body of armed personnel.

It mentions a "well-regulated militia" - a military force kept in check, and then mentions "people" separately.

Thus, people check the militia.

Today of course, the militia is the people. Thus today, the militia checks the military.

Also, "keep, bear and carry arms" is redundant; bear and carry have the same meaning in the current Second Amendment. Ain't debate fun though!
I know, but I'm willing to go with a little redundancy if it means I could carry freely if this hypothetical 2A revision were to get accepted. :)
 

sailor

New member
toreskha ---"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people... To disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them." (George Mason). "A militia, when properly formed , are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms ... To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms." (Richard Henry Lee). The point being, the militia is The People - the military is not the militia - is not now, and never was. Our nations history is based on the militia, with a great aversion to a standing army - again - the basic reason behind the Second Amendment - to be a counter to the standing army idea. The military and the militia are two seperate and distinct concepts - and never the twain shall meet - I hope!
sailor
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
"Congress shall make no law which violates the Natural Right of The People to maintain arms suitable for self defense, sport, and defense of Home and Country from enemies of the Constitution, foreign or domestic. Likewise the several States are prohibited from infringing on this Right in any manner whatsoever."
 

NDS

New member
One problem: in law, if you say who cannot do something, then it leaves open the door for everyone else but that entity to do it.

Mentioning Congress also implies that it only applies at the federal level. The executive branch, judiciary, and all state and local legislatures, executives and courts at all levels will suddenly think that they can impose de facto anti-gun measures. This has unfortunately happened with the First Amendment to the point where it's just getting ridiculous. Congress can't pass any laws "respecting an establishment of religion", but certainly everyone else will get their thumbs in the pie.

Go look at the wording of the other amendments, then read the rest of my post about incorporation. Had the 2nd been written without reference to the militia, things would have been much simpler.
 

Ruger Lady

New member
I might take words from both the Virginia and Vermont State's Constitutions. But like the US Constitution, it could still leave it open to interpretation.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
 

Rht4162

New member
americans have the right to keep and bear arms, or in otherwords, californians keep your laws off my guns!!
 

HK4U

New member
When it comes right down to it, it really would not matter how it was written. You could make it so easy a 1st grader could understand it and there would still be those that argue its meaning. I feel that is because as a I have said before there is an element that does not care what it says or the rest of the constitution for that matter. They want the constitution scraped or at least so watered down that it would be worthless. They desire a one world government, New world order. Our constitution and especially the 2nd amendment is standing in their way.
 
Last edited:

sailor

New member
HK4U ---
+1
When "All the Kings Horses, and All the Kings Men" can't understand one clear, complete sentence in uncomplicated English, your statement seems to answer the connundrum. Plus, back up that one sentence (Second Amendment) with voluminus writings by the very Founders that voted that amendment into the Bill of Rights, and your statement about obfuscation is even more "on spot".
sailor
 

Boofreakinyah

Glock 23c
How about this?

Because a civilian militia, voluntarily comprised of, by and for the people, is necessary to their own security and protection against an out-of-control government; Because the people have the natural right to protect themselves, their families and their homes; Because the people have the natural right to provide hunted food to their families; Because the people have the natural right to recreationally practice the skills necessary to exercise all of these rights, the individual right of the people to own and carry a firearm shall not be interfered with by any individual or organization at any time, in any location and for any reason other than a violent felony conviction or documented mental infirmaty.

I know....I know........But it sounds good on paper.
 

hpj3

New member
Quite simply, just the way it is written! It was written in the language of the day, and understood by all. The "collective rights" BS didn't appear until the 20th century... when the socialist left wing decided that they had to"control" the rest ofus...

Howard
 

automatic slim

New member
Keep it simple.

To the vast majority of people who aren't lawyers, judges or politicians, the second amendment is clear in it's meaning. It obviously means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms and that they are also the militia. No doubt the founders anticipated the likes of Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama, so they included the "shall not be infringed" portion.
If the amendment were rewritten, including the phrase "Congress shall pass no law" would be a mistake. Anti-gunners would then say that everyone else, cities, counties, states, regions, etc. could pass gun laws.

How about: The people have the right to keep and bear arms. No law shall abridge that right.

Theres no need to put in specifics such as self defense, security, for the common defense, hunting, etc. Some anti will just think of a situation not mentioned and use that to get their foot in the door.
In my example the people simply have that right, period. The second clause simply states "No LAW", period. Everything from Congress to the local city concil is covered, because no law means NO LAW, without exception.
 

talonap

Talon
To the vast majority of people who aren't lawyers, judges or politicians, the second amendment is clear in it's meaning. It obviously means that "the people" have the right to keep and bear arms and that they are also the militia. No doubt the founders anticipated the likes of Ted Kennedy or Barack Obama, so they included the "shall not be infringed" portion.
If the amendment were rewritten, including the phrase "Congress shall pass no law" would be a mistake. Anti-gunners would then say that everyone else, cities, counties, states, regions, etc. could pass gun laws.

How about: The people have the right to keep and bear arms. No law shall abridge that right.

Theres no need to put in specifics such as self defense, security, for the common defense, hunting, etc. Some anti will just think of a situation not mentioned and use that to get their foot in the door.
In my example the people simply have that right, period. The second clause simply states "No LAW", period. Everything from Congress to the local city concil is covered, because no law means NO LAW, without exception.

Or how about just, "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

We don't need no stinkin' Militia. :)
 

boris

New member
or this one...

" The Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The only excepton is felony offenses and irresponsibility. Refusal to keep and bear arms along with gaining the necessary skill to use them shall be punishable by a fine of not more than 100,00 dollars and ajail term of not more than 5 years at hard labor. To Wit: breaking big rocks into smaller ones. " .......or death by firing squad.... depends on my mood when i get up....
 

Landor

New member
Honestly,

I am not smart enough to write a document as important as that. I would mess it all up. Elephants would have the right to keep and bear arms if I wrote it. :)
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,354
Messages
622,666
Members
74,170
Latest member
Strategicfirearmtraining
Top