How would you have written the 2nd Amendment?

[jackmcmanus21]

American citizens have the right to defend themselves, their family and their property with justified force using whatever they deem necessary.

 

[hpj3]

" 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....

My most fervent hope right now is that you're not serious...

Howard

 

[calmp9]

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.

I would have made the 2nd Amendment preemptive. I would make it illegal for state governments to impose stricter firearms laws that mandated by the Federal Government.

 

[Shoots Running]

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Every phrase and qualifier you add to this creates decades more speculation and litigation. Look at what happened the first time!

Give a metro-lib 2" of string and he will try to strangle you with it.

 

[Brainchild]

I don't think it could be any simpler,really.

I'm no scholar,but I think,maybe,the 'well regulated militia' part was included to help assure its ratification.But it really is pretty simple.The reight of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.I cou;dn't do any better.It very simp;y and very clearly means that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.That means guns,knives,sticks,pointy metal rods,slingshots,in short,weapons of any any every kind.Now,to answer a coworker of mine,no I would not want everybody to have nuclear weapons.That is being rediculous.But I would say any type of personal and/or man portable weapon,yes.Including and especially the ones the police and military use.As I have mentioned in another forum,natural selection will cull out anybody being stupid with weapons.
I'm just saying.

 

[2beararms]

Honestly, to me it is one of the best written passages anywhere. My interpretation may not be widely viewed, however here is how I see it:

The "Well regulated militia" part of it was (is) vital in that a militia IS NOT a government agency, it is the assembly of people in common to the defense of a cause or property. At the time it was written certainly the fear was that the King would seize all weapons and if a new government was formed, that such government could readily become corrupt and would then move to do the same thing. The wording of this amendment not only provided, the people with the right to have weapons in their possession and to carry said weapons for defensive needs but also gives the PEOPLE the absolute right to band together, armed in formation of a militia (as opposed to a mob, hence the well regulated) in order to defend a common cause.

That could become very important should say a whole town decide to rise up against the county sheriff. Technically therefore, IMHO, as long as that towns people appointed leadership to direct the effort, this armed group would be a well regulated militia as opposed to a mob and the power of constitutional law would be on their side overriding the authority granted to the sherrif and his deputies under state law. In this matter, constitutional law would mean that the Federal Government should have to back the militia.

It seems like a stretch, but only because we are a fairly sane country, look at many other areas of the world and you can see why this could be an important legal postition.

2A is so much more than saying "you can have guns", if that is all it was meant to say, that is what it would have said, but in reality at the time it was written that was a given since it was the major way of getting food.

The forefathers were not concerned with our right to own guns in general, they never thought that would be challenged except as a sign of tyrany (which perhaps gun control is). Our forefathers concern was with the very existence of freedom and with the ability of US as individuals, to form into the groups, armed and trained to protect it at all costs, from all invaders, including the government they were forming.

Smart men they were!

 

[gordo]

Honestly, to me it is one of the best written passages anywhere. My interpretation may not be widely viewed, however here is how I see it:

The "Well regulated militia" part of it was (is) vital in that a militia IS NOT a government agency, it is the assembly of people in common to the defense of a cause or property. At the time it was written certainly the fear was that the King would seize all weapons and if a new government was formed, that such government could readily become corrupt and would then move to do the same thing. The wording of this amendment not only provided, the people with the right to have weapons in their possession and to carry said weapons for defensive needs but also gives the PEOPLE the absolute right to band together, armed in formation of a militia (as opposed to a mob, hence the well regulated) in order to defend a common cause.

That could become very important should say a whole town decide to rise up against the county sheriff. Technically therefore, IMHO, as long as that towns people appointed leadership to direct the effort, this armed group would be a well regulated militia as opposed to a mob and the power of constitutional law would be on their side overriding the authority granted to the sherrif and his deputies under state law. In this matter, constitutional law would mean that the Federal Government should have to back the militia.

It seems like a stretch, but only because we are a fairly sane country, look at many other areas of the world and you can see why this could be an important legal postition.

2A is so much more than saying "you can have guns", if that is all it was meant to say, that is what it would have said, but in reality at the time it was written that was a given since it was the major way of getting food.

The forefathers were not concerned with our right to own guns in general, they never thought that would be challenged except as a sign of tyrany (which perhaps gun control is). Our forefathers concern was with the very existence of freedom and with the ability of US as individuals, to form into the groups, armed and trained to protect it at all costs, from all invaders, including the government they were forming.

Smart men they were!

That is exactly the way I have always interpreted the 2A, but do not have the talent to put it into words like you have. Well said 2beararms.