Mexico's "2nd Amendment"


PDA






Yoda
August 14, 2008, 05:15 AM
Mexico (the "old" one, not out "new" one), provides an excellent example of how "common sense" gun laws can completely invalidate a constitutional guarantee. Here's what the 1917 Mexican Constitution says:

"Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the army, navy, or national guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations."

Sounds like every common citizen can pretty much own whatever they think they need, with the only restrictions being "police regulations" and a general prohibition against private ownership of guns reserved for the exclusive use of the military... oh, yes, and those "common sense" prohibitions contained in the catch phrase, "...expressly forbidden by law...".

It is the natural, universal tendancy of government to erode the rights of the people.

- - - Yoda

When the government outlaws guns, only the government will have guns. Do you trust the government?

=======================

If you enjoyed reading about "Mexico's "2nd Amendment"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
luft97
August 14, 2008, 05:21 AM
Hey if we are not careful we could end up with something similar here. :(

Anotherguy
August 14, 2008, 07:33 AM
"Article 10. The inhabitants of the United Mexican States are entitled to have arms of any kind in their possession for their protection and legitimate defense, except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the army, navy, or national guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations."

Hey if we are not careful we could end up with something similar here.

It's already here in certain states.
From Article 1 of the Bill of Rights of Illinois:

SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS

Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

(Emphasis mine)

Picard
August 14, 2008, 10:20 AM
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Source: Illinois Constitution.)

Now why'd you have to remind me about how crummy my home state is. :barf:

Alexey931
August 14, 2008, 10:49 AM
The so called "Brezhnev Constitution" of 1977 (USSR) made the same provision concerning the right of association: "unless contrary to the public good", of something like that. Curiously, the Stalin Constitution of 1937 declared the freedom of speech, press and association unconditionally. FWIW.

XDKingslayer
August 14, 2008, 11:04 AM
They have bastardized the laws to fit their agenda just as our politicians have.

While in print it looks like they can own anything they want except military weapons the last time I checked they couldn't own military CALIBERS.

That means they couldn't own a 9mm XD or even a .45ACP 1911.

Unless I'm completely way off base here, which has happened from time to time...

The Lone Haranguer
August 14, 2008, 11:14 AM
... except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the army, navy, or national guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations."

:rolleyes:

When you make exceptions to a right, it is not a right.

Soybomb
August 14, 2008, 11:23 AM
I've always wondered a bit of the history behind that provision in the illinois constitution. Was it written to be as pointless as it is?

tigre
August 14, 2008, 11:28 AM
The part that starts with the word "except" pretty well invalidates the part that comes before it. The purpose of our Bill of Rights is to protect the rights of the people against encroachment by the government. So saying we have a right except in any case where the government decides we don't would be pointless. Mexico's "2nd Amendment" only gives them the rights that their current government allows them to have.

230RN
August 14, 2008, 12:20 PM
The older I get, the more I think I'd prefer the handshake method of making agreements:

"Hey, you can have any gun you want."

"Okay, thanks."

<shake hands>

No more freakin' around with thisa word meaning thata and thata word meaning thisa and "but that was yesterday and today's today" crap.

230RN said that.

Rugerlvr
August 14, 2008, 12:48 PM
I think .38 Super is very popular in Mexico because the military don't use it. Anything bigger, and they do, and it's strictly illegal for citizens to own.

crebralfix
August 14, 2008, 01:04 PM
except such as are expressly forbidden by law, or which the nation may reserve for the exclusive use of the army, navy, or national guard; but they may not carry arms within inhabited places without complying with police regulations."

This sentence very clearly states that it's not a right.

Translation:

You can have weapons, except for the ones we don't want you to have and you have to follow police regulation if you wish to carry weapons.

Why in the world would anyone believe the Mexicans have a right to arms?

Snapping Twig
August 14, 2008, 01:28 PM
What the big print giveth, the small print taketh away.

pappy
August 14, 2008, 01:32 PM
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." - President Bill Clinton, 1998.

Anything left to interpretation of politicians WILL be mis-construed.

ants
August 14, 2008, 01:45 PM
Just for clarification, the meaning of "police power" in a state constitution doesn't mean power given to the cops.

Police Power stems from the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reserves to the states the rights and powers "not delegated to the United States" which include protection of the welfare, safety, health and even morals of the public. Police powers include licensing, inspection, zoning, safety regulations (which cover a lot of territory), quarantines, and working conditions as well as law enforcement. In short, police powers are the basis of a host of state regulatory statutes.

This is the legal definition of Police Power from a law dictionary, I'm not smart enough to make it up myself.

Larry E
August 14, 2008, 06:13 PM
And the anti-gun people here figure that the only guns we might need are the ones in the possession of the police and military because civilians aren't qualified to or capable of using guns safely, sensibly, and for our own defense. Hunting is obviously not nice, so guns for hunting aren't needed either. :eek: :barf::barf:

Nate C.
August 14, 2008, 07:33 PM
On a tangent, but:

Has anyone else noticed the recent flurry of mainstream broadcast media 'news' articles about "United States is source for Mexican crime guns;" or "Most illegal guns in Mexico originate in U.S."

Can you even purchase a gun legally in Mexico? I am told it's a major hassle to go hunting down there with your own weapons.

If you enjoyed reading about "Mexico's "2nd Amendment"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!