Drafting a Gunowners Bill of Rights


PDA






barnbwt
January 5, 2013, 10:01 PM
I propose we try to draw up a list of specific protections we can all agree are granted to us by virtue of the 2nd Amendment. Just like the Bill of Rights, this would not be a list defining the extent of our freedoms, but an explicit summary of our most obvious/applicable protections. We're not the SCOTUS, but we (well most of us here) are American citizens, so we damn well have the right to interpret our own Constitution. And if we can find common ground with eachother, we damn well carry some weight in Washington. To that end I think it would be great to make a A Document that outlines our basic protectons.

I recommend we be as broad (but not vague) as possible, and terse. A short list of single sentences will be easier for our reps to read.

For instance, I believe the 2nd Amendment grants us The right to use firearms for any purpose (that does not infringe on the Constitutionally protected rights of others) and that we have The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper for that purpose. Very broad (I didn't say "I think it's legal for me to own an EBR for hunting deer"), but it still conveys meaning (it's not "I have the right to own what I want"). I tried to write it to be more "universal" to all types of gunowners, so there'd be less controversy over specifics.

We'll make a list of a couple dozen "clauses" suggested, and only include those with no controversy. That will give others and our reps a good, concise description of how gunowners in general understand and exercise our right to bear arms.

What are your thoughts on this project, my/others' contributions, and what do you think should be added?

TCB

PS: Yes, it's easy to simply shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and cross your arms; discussion over--but that is an extremely disrespectful (petulant, honestly) way to debate with somoeone who doesn't already agree with you. Let's aim for a meaningful, compelling representation of our core beliefs

If you enjoyed reading about "Drafting a Gunowners Bill of Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
KLL
January 5, 2013, 10:11 PM
"The right to use firearms for any purpose" - I don't think a purpose should ever have to be given.

"The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper for that purpose" - Again, I don't need a purpose, and allowing someone the chance to deem what is proper for a purpose is no better than where we are now.

My stance is that anything the fires a projectile that can only strike one person at a time (bullets going through one person and onto another notwithstanding) should be legal for a law abiding citizen to possess. No rocket launchers or WMDs, that's fine, but if it fires a round smaller than my hand, I believe I should be able to own it. Magazines, weapon styles and designs, registration, quantities, NFA items, and accessories are all non-negotiable.

tyeo098
January 5, 2013, 10:18 PM
We should be allowed to own, as the forefathers put it: "All the terrible instruments of the soldier"

Or something like that: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

AlexanderA
January 5, 2013, 10:42 PM
I don't think such a declaration would be helpful in the current climate. The mere drafting of such a document would be divisive among gun owners, and distract us from what is really important, which is putting the maximum pressure on our wavering "allies" in Congress. Stay focussed.

M-Cameron
January 5, 2013, 10:49 PM
PS: Yes, it's easy to simply shout "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" and cross your arms; discussion over--but that is an extremely disrespectful (petulant, honestly) way to debate with somoeone who doesn't already agree with you. Let's aim for a meaningful, compelling representation of our core beliefs

because we all know how respectful the anti-2A crowd has been.....the NRA has been called murderous Klansman, and gun owners are Jihadists....

i dont care if they disagree with me, they are wrong...pure and simple.

i dont care how you spin it, there is only one way to interpret the 2A, and it needs no clarification.......anyone who has passed 3rd grade reading comprehension knows damn well what it says and what it means, and if they dont want to accept that, its because they have pre-existing prejudices and refuse to admit to anything other than their beliefs.

you cannot convince someone who is arguing irrationally....its best to either go through them or go around them.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 10:53 PM
Rather than crossing my arms and being petulant (again), I'll simply say that I agree with M-Cameron.

Why are we so willing to shoot ourselves in the foot?

DammitBoy
January 5, 2013, 11:04 PM
I can't remember where I found this (old age) maybe it was here? But I won't claim it as my own - still a good start.

---

We need the equivalent of incorporating the Second Amendment Rights to the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Act.

We need to be pushing for REMOVAL of restrictions that impair our ability to defend one's family, one's self and one's society and nation. Far too long have we allowed certain members to attack and deny our rights. It is no different than how the Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent full rights to Blacks. No different than how Democrats fought tooth and nail to prevent Voting Rights.

We should be demanding the legislative teeth to back up Heller, McDonald and other rulings.

1) Incorporate the express desire to exercise one's Second Amendment Right as a Federal 'protective class' with strict scrutiny applied to any and all related laws.

2) Mandate that anyone, anywhere who can lawfully meet the requirements as on the current 4473 must be allowed to purchase any lawful (non-NFA) firearm. Any additional restriction must be viewed as a violation of Civil Rights with several legal and civil penalties.

3) Mandate that any 'ID', "card" "permit" etc be 'shall issue' to all citizens who meet the test of 4473. Any fee, tax or associated cost to obtain said ID must be treated as a "Poll Tax" and criminalized as a violation of Civic Rights. Any additional restriction must be viewed as a violation of Civil Rights with several legal and civil penalties.

4) Mandate as a Maximum requirement of a "Shall Issue" open and concealed carry permit. No requirement to exceed the requirements of 4473 can be required; except for an NRA or other designated pro-Second Amendment Group's safety training, not to exceed 8 hours, which must be offered enough that any citizen can reasonably attend within 2 weeks, and 25 miles. The state "Shall Issue" said ID, Card, Permit within 2 weeks after completing said class. Any and All costs shall be born by the State. Any additional restriction must be viewed as a violation of Civil Rights with several legal and civil penalties.

5) Mandate that the full protections of the "Full Faith and Credit Act" apply to all issued ID, Card, Permit etc. Any additional restriction must be viewed as a violation of Civil Rights with several legal and civil penalties.

6) Mandate that any and all "Free Kill Zones" be abolished, except for designated Secure Government Facilities, which will require continuous 24/7 Armed Police Officer or Other Government Security [Not Private]. Any additional restriction must be viewed as a violation of Civil Rights with several legal and civil penalties.

7) Mandate that simply possessing or carrying a firearm of any type is NOT reasonable or probable cause of a crime being committed.

8) Mandate that any lawful citizen who meets the requirement of 4473 will have inherent Standing, to sue any level of government, official or agency for any violation of these Civil Rights.

1911 guy
January 5, 2013, 11:14 PM
Alright, I'll play.

First paragraph of your OP, I agree. The problem comes when that "common ground" is deemed too radical by some and seen as giving way to incrementalism by others.

Egads, I'm trying really hard not to rain on the parade because if we can find agreement it would be a welcome end to the bickering that's taken over THR in the last week or two. But we're dealing with lawyers in Washington, not the Average Joe with some sense of integrity. Anything short, broad and terse is going to be meaningless. Ever wonder why drafted legislation is thousands of pages? Because they dot the "I" and cross the "T" in triplicate. We could write something that every "Average Joe" in America can read and derrive a single meaning from, but the professional buzzards in Washington would pick apart verbiage and punctiation. Kinda like they've been doing to our existing Constitution.

In the spirit of the thing, though, I'll offer this.
I believe the second amendment and the Constitution enumerates(1) the right to own, purchase, sell or otherwise acquire by means not defrauding or depriving another(2) any type of firearm or destructive device.

The use of such devices may at times be regulated by jurisdiction for the safety of others usually occupying the area but may not be prohibited.(3)

Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability for a given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user and may not be legally challenged by any authority.(4)

Ammunition and accessories for such firearms, implements and devices may not be restricted. Such restriction will be assumed to be restriction on the use of same and is in violation of this document.

(1) The right is enumerated, or named, but not granted by a government document.
(2) gifting is to be allowable in all circumstances, as this deprives none against their will.
(3) Cities, villages and townships have the right to ensure the safety of their populations against shooting in an unsafe area
(4) Most states game laws are entirely reasonable and there is no reason to assume that would change.

Byrd666
January 5, 2013, 11:19 PM
per our Second Amendment Rights - 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.

per the Texas Constitution - Sec. 23. RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

'nuff said

Derek Zeanah
January 5, 2013, 11:26 PM
I like simple: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Seems all inclusive. As a society, we just need the intestinal fortitude to abide by it.

barnbwt
January 6, 2013, 12:02 AM
The mere drafting of such a document would be divisive among gun owners
I don't think it has to be, if we don't delve too far into specifics. I'm certain that's why the BOR had to be written so broadly in the first place. Remember that there was great debate over whether to draft a Bill of Rights at all, though. I do think this list will be controversial (heck, it already is :o), but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. By rejecting all the hotly contested items, I hope to get something almost all of us can rally around.

We need to be pushing for REMOVAL of restrictions...
Exactly. That's why I think a from-scratch approach would be helpful. Debating within existing paradigms only serves to legitimize them; we're citizens, not lawmakers. They are the ones who have to craft legislation within the law. We're the "idea guys" who tell them which direction to run. I like the ideas in the text you quoted, but it's probably too specific to put on a hat--so to speak ;). I've tweaked/added some items to try and incorporate those specific demands, though.

Why are we so willing to shoot ourselves in the foot?
Is discussing, identifying, and distilling our argument really shooting ourselves in the foot? I mentioned that such a list of protections is not meant to be interpretted as the extent of our rights. By clearly stating what we are after, we don't let the anti's define us. By refusing to dialogue (or even monologue) they can paint us as whatever boogy they please.

because we all know how respectful the anti-2A crowd has been.....the NRA has been called murderous Klansman, and gun owners are Jihadists....

I hoped everyone could tell by my candor that I have no intention of writing this for the likes of the Brady Campaign. It is to clearly explain our aims for the federal treatment of firearms in this country so our representatives can better reflect our "will." There is nothing wrong with quoting or literally interpretting the Constitution; in fact, that's precisely what I'm trying to accomplish here. I simply disagree with the notion the discussion should be ended defiantly, since it doesn't seem productive. I would welcome a legitimate conversation with my anti's; but since they have shown few indications of negotiating or debating in good faith, I'll settle for a conversation amongst diverse gunowners :)

I have a couple more items: Arms may be borne at any time the user feels them necessary (i.e. no gun free zones, workplaces, etc. unless doing so conflicts with the rights of others. Nod to Dammitboy :))

An individual may make any restriction on the use of arms, but only concerning the confines of their propery (i.e. my house my rules, and you can't fire rounds over my land with impunity. Seems "reasonable," but I think this one needs a bit of work)

Admission of the purpose for the personal use of arms may not be compelled (i.e. you don't have to explain your use [not possession] of guns, but a "posse" or "militia" may be compelled to. Nod to KLL :))

And I'll refine the first per KLL's feedback:
"The right to use firearms for any purpose seen fit by the user, may not be restricted"
I originally had something like that at the end, but thought it implied (naiive me;)). Other Constitutional rights would still protect others from murder, etc. so no restrictions are necessary. All references to "purpose" should really be "users' purpose." We all own firearms for one purpose or another, though it isn't necessarily anyone's business. But, if you were to discharge a weapon, it seems within someone else's rights to ask you why, doesn't it? I added a specific item to protect against being compelled to explain your use, though.

Great responses guys! I really feel like we can get some good material from this :cool:

TCB

RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; BUT the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.
It's always hacked me off that there's a "But Monkey" in this critical portion of my state constitution :mad:

DammitBoy
January 6, 2013, 12:07 AM
Alright, I'll play.

First paragraph of your OP, I agree. The problem comes when that "common ground" is deemed too radical by some and seen as giving way to incrementalism by others.

Egads, I'm trying really hard not to rain on the parade because if we can find agreement it would be a welcome end to the bickering that's taken over THR in the last week or two. But we're dealing with lawyers in Washington, not the Average Joe with some sense of integrity. Anything short, broad and terse is going to be meaningless. Ever wonder why drafted legislation is thousands of pages? Because they dot the "I" and cross the "T" in triplicate. We could write something that every "Average Joe" in America can read and derrive a single meaning from, but the professional buzzards in Washington would pick apart verbiage and punctiation. Kinda like they've been doing to our existing Constitution.

In the spirit of the thing, though, I'll offer this.
I believe the second amendment and the Constitution enumerates(1) the right to own, purchase, sell or otherwise acquire by means not defrauding or depriving another(2) any type of firearm or destructive device.

The use of such devices may at times be regulated by jurisdiction for the safety of others usually occupying the area but may not be prohibited.(3)

Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability for a given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user and may not be legally challenged by any authority.(4)

Ammunition and accessories for such firearms, implements and devices may not be restricted. Such restriction will be assumed to be restriction on the use of same and is in violation of this document.

(1) The right is enumerated, or named, but not granted by a government document.
(2) gifting is to be allowable in all circumstances, as this deprives none against their will.
(3) Cities, villages and townships have the right to ensure the safety of their populations against shooting in an unsafe area
(4) Most states game laws are entirely reasonable and there is no reason to assume that would change.

I like it, very well stated and thought out.

barnbwt
January 6, 2013, 12:17 AM
I like simple: "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You know what, you're right. I'll add that one to the top of the list, just in case anyone thinks we're trying to rewrite it through this exercise:

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 right to use firearms for any purpose seen fit by the user may not be restricted

Admission of the purpose for the personal use of arms may not be compelled

The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper for personal purposes may not be restricted

Arms may be borne at any time the user finds them necessary for their purpose

The right to own, purchase, sell or otherwise acquire by means not defrauding or depriving another any type of firearm or destructive device.

The use of such devices may at times be regulated by jurisdiction for the safety of others usually occupying the area but may not be prohibited.

Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability for a given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user and may not be legally challenged by any authority.

Ammunition and accessories for such firearms, implements and devices may not be restricted. Such restriction will be assumed to be restriction on the use of same and is in violation of this document.

No restrictions may be implied from these articles

I added that last one--a (hopefully) clearer version of our now-neutered nebulous 9th Amendment. Only explicitly stated restrictions may be counted as valid. Keep the comments coming, I'll try to keep up :D. Thanks for the very well written and concise additions, 1911Guy. I especially appreciate the exemption for state game laws; we wouldn't want to trump states' rights in the name of federal regulation! :eek: Something I hadn't been considering as carefully as I should have.

Honestly, if the 2nd Amendment is the only thing we end up in agreement on, that in itself will be very telling.

TCB

1911 guy
January 6, 2013, 12:24 AM
Since you're trying draft something concise and accurate, I'll point out that you contradicted point three (not counting the text of 2A) with point six. Whoever is responsible for deeming a firearm appropriate for personal defense is in effect able to restrict use or posession by deeming not appropriate.

ExAgoradzo
January 6, 2013, 12:56 AM
(4) Most states game laws are entirely reasonable and there is no reason to assume that would change.
You don't live in CA! :)

I am pleased that several have offered well thought out reasonable suggestions.

The purpose of the 2ndA was so that we could defend ourselves against tyranny. though I don't own any AR kinds of firearms, I do believe it is our right to own/legally use them.

But remember guys, it is our responsibility to educate calmly and effectively with those who for the most part simply have no experience except what our wacko media portrays (blood thirsty movies, killings on the news, prejudiced commentators). We need to do our homework with the culture as well...we are losing what was once assumed.

Greg

klyph
January 6, 2013, 12:59 AM
I really wish the fathers had simply added the words: "Congress shall make no law" to the 2nd amendment. It would have possibly averted all the blatantly unconstitutional laws we've been subjected to.

mljdeckard
January 6, 2013, 01:04 AM
I concur completely with 5 and 10.

Ok, good idea, no harm in spelling it out for those who would distort it, ok. But....to what end? Are you wanting to make it a law? I don't see a president signing it. Nor do I see a veto-proof majority running it through. WE already get this. I just don't see it making a dent in anyone else.

mljdeckard
January 6, 2013, 01:07 AM
And Klyph, we would think that 'shall not be infringed' would be just as bullet-proof, and it apparently isn't. Also remember that when The Constitution was written, it had much less universal influence than it does now. Forbidding congress from doing something didn't necessarily prevent the several states from enacting laws. We would STILL be sorting it out in court.

1911 guy
January 6, 2013, 01:40 AM
Since we've got something that's beginning to get people on board (and I agree, this is merely an intellectual exercise with no legal weight), I have another suggestion.

On point three, again not counting the text of 2A, there is a provision for determining what is suitable for personal use. Who determines if it is suitable or not? Also, introducing the term "personal use" can be construed as disallowing arms requiring more than one person to use, carry or maintain. Think crew served. Or just some of those nearly ancient but highly collectable monstrosities some people like to collect.

It also may be construed as disallowing arms designed for the effective common defense. Because it's not personal.

Just trying to think like a pinhead, I mean politician.

DammitBoy
January 6, 2013, 11:50 AM
I've already used it to post on my Senators and Congressman's facebook pages. Getting lots of likes from other constituents!

Post it everywhere on all social media.

barnbwt
January 6, 2013, 07:52 PM
Admission of the purpose for the personal use of arms may not be compelled

I intentionally referred to "personal use" since I believe that an organized group should, at some level, begin to be subject to some sort of regulation or control (to keep mad scientists from building covert armies of henchmen). But I somewhat agree this language may be too limiting. On one hand, an armed group is far better prepared to defend itself and others, but on the other, more faith is required to believe it would not lead to terrible consequences (i.e. insurrection by a minority/splinter group of the populace, as opposed to a widespread justifiable revolt against tyranny. Perhaps I'm just unaccustomed to the idea of militias, and fear their presence (much like the ignorant fear guns).

At any rate, that's a whole new topic that deserves its own thread. I'll just remove that language for now, since it seems like there'd be a lot of controversy to sift through there. For now, "personal use" will be simply "use". I also don't think "admission" was the right word for what I was thinking of, so it's now "divulsion". Maybe that's better grammar :o. Also, do ya'll think I should add "outside a court of law" at the end to make this information obtainable through formal subpoena? My intention was simply that authorities couldn't demand answers as a matter of course.

Divulsion of the purpose for the use of arms may not be compelled

there is a provision for determining what is suitable for personal use. Who determines if it is suitable or not?
The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper for personal purposes may not be restricted
Good catch. I absolutely meant for the user to be the judge. I removed the reference to personal use here as well.
The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper by the user for their use may not be restricted

The use of such devices may at times be regulated by jurisdiction for the safety of others usually occupying the area but may not be prohibited.
I think it would be best to remove this item from the list for now. Too many local differences in law to form a comprehensive doctrine. Local/state/federal laws limiting use to protect the rights of other citizens under their enumerated powers would still be permitted. We are simply trying to define that which "shall not be infringed." As far as hunting, it seems legit (to me) for the Feds to have at least some authority over how citizens hunt or perform any other activity, when it occurs on federal land. Do we really have a Constitutionally protected right to hunt, hike, or pan for gold on BLM property? (I live in a state with little of this land, so I honestly can't comment on the topic)

But....to what end? Are you wanting to make it a law? I don't see a president signing it. Nor do I see a veto-proof majority running it through. WE already get this. I just don't see it making a dent in anyone else.
At best, this may help those who don't understand us to grasp our common ideology. At worst? Well, at least I'm finding out how everyone else feels about these things--and wasting everyone's precious time to debate AK vs AR :D

TCB

Just trying to think like a pinhead, I mean politician.
That's what we need. The Constitution was written basically as a legal maze to confound ambititious politicians in the future. It took the rats nearly a hundred years before blasting through a good chunk of the maze (Civil War) and they've been working there way out of it ever since. It's still quite impressive the system of checks and balances worked as long as it did, humans being the crafty creatures they are. It really wasn't until separate branches of the government began acting in concert (instead of competition) though the party system that those balances began breaking down, and power started shifting/concentrating.

barnbwt
January 6, 2013, 08:35 PM
I'll number these for easier reference:

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.

1) The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper by the user may not be restricted

2) Divulsion of the purpose for the use of arms may not be compelled

3) The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper for personal purposes may not be restricted

4) Arms may be borne at any time the user finds them necessary for their purpose

5) The right to own, purchase, sell or otherwise acquire by means not defrauding or depriving another any type of firearm or destructive device.

6) Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability for a given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user and may not be legally challenged by any authority.

7) Ammunition and accessories for such firearms, implements and devices may not be restricted. Such restriction will be assumed to be restriction on the use of same and is in violation of this document.

8) No restrictions may be implied from these articles

joe 1951
January 6, 2013, 10:43 PM
We have a gunowner bill of rights it's called the Second Amendment !!

klyph
January 6, 2013, 10:46 PM
The premise here is pretty silly, you want to repeal laws contrary to the literal interpretation of the constitution, I get it, but this is meaningless. The second amendment says everything we need it to say, we just need to make our govt follow it's constitution for a change.

beatledog7
January 6, 2013, 11:06 PM
The way to get <equal> protection under the law is to become a member of a protected "victim" class, either by joining one or making one.

Since gun owners and Constitution-readers are both persecuted minorities in the US, it seems we should be able to get ourselves legally declared a victim class. Then whenever someone criticizes our views or practices we can charge them with a hate crime.

barnbwt
January 6, 2013, 11:47 PM
We have a gunowner bill of rights it's called the Second Amendment !!
Would it make everyone happier if we called it the "Gun Owner's Manifesto"? (Oh wait, that's not good either.) Does it really matter what it's called? I hoped by giving the list an easy name people would be more interested. What do you think the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" entails? If we don't define it for our government, they will, and then they'll "not infringe" on the tiny sliver of protection they do leave in place for us. Non-transferable single-shot 22LR with one registered round.

The premise here is pretty silly, you want to repeal laws contrary to the literal interpretation of the constitution, I get it, but this is meaningless. The second amendment says everything we need it to say, we just need to make our govt follow it's constitution for a change.
Nothing intrinsically protects the meaning of the Constitution--the Supreme Court can rule black is white, if they believe they'd get away with it, and congress/prez can sign laws for the same if they are not questioned. Expanding firearms rights does not benefit any branch of the government in any way--we, the citizens, must force this isssue upon them. I hoped a list explaining the protections offered by the 2nd will help us make our govt representatives follow the Constitution for a change. Half the discussions in General right now are on 2nd Amendment stuff and peoples' beliefs--I just want to agglomerate the views we have in common into one place. For instance, it seems most gunowners here want the 2nd interpretted literally--that is, not changing with time, whether or not such changes empower gunowners or disarm them.

Since gun owners and Constitution-readers are both persecuted minorities in the US, it seems we should be able to get ourselves legally declared a victim class. Then whenever someone criticizes our views or practices we can charge them with a hate crime.
Whether or not "hate crime" laws are constitutional or even necessary is outside the scope of 2nd Amendment. What do you think are the broad protections that the Constitution recognizes for gunowners?

TCB

Frogomatik
January 7, 2013, 12:41 AM
In the spirit of this exercise I must offer this...

Every person has the right to do anything and everything they so desire that does not violate the rights of another.

barnbwt
January 9, 2013, 08:53 PM
"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."

1) The right to acquire and possess any firearm, its ammunition, or any of its accessories chosen by the user may not be restricted

2) Explanation of the purpose for the use of arms may not be compelled

3) The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper for personal purposes may not be restricted

4) Arms may be borne at any time the user finds them necessary for their purpose

5) The right to own, purchase, sell or otherwise acquire by means not defrauding or depriving another any type of firearm or destructive device.

6) Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability for a given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user and may not be legally challenged by any authority.

7) Ammunition and accessories for such firearms, implements and devices may not be restricted. Such restriction will be assumed to be restriction on the use of same and is in violation of this document.*DELETED*

7) No restrictions on citizens or their militia may be implied from these articles

Thanks for the entry, Frogomatik, I think it may be covered by the "Due Process" clause, already, though (i.e. commit a crime, lose your rights, now your actions are limited/regulated. The 'ol "my right to swing my fist ends at your nose" axiom.) It would be nice if that language was explicitly stated, though, as the "Zeroth Amendment" or something. All signs point to the intention being that rights must not be restricted unless they conflict with eachother, and only then would courts determine who is more seriously "infringed" in such a case. But the writers didn't state it as plainly as that (I think), unfortunately.

I made a few more tweaks, combined two entries to shorten the list a bit, and broadened the "catch all" at the end.

Though the details and implementation could certaintly be debated at length, this list seems like it would be fairly well received by the majority of posters in the "Gun Rights" threads I've read on here lately. If there's seven things we can agree on, that's fantastic. Ideally, we would be able to use them to "test" proposed legislation for contradictions with our core beliefs, instead of having to go with what "feels right" and "doesn't seem" like a breach of our freedoms. Hopefully they can help gunowners better visualize and understand their own core beliefs on this issue so they do no waver when others try to exploit their emotions.

It's entirely too much to expect politicians to interpret these items and apply it to the legislation they write and promote , so I wouldn't bother forwarding this or other manifestos to your reps; just send them a clear, concise letter describing what actions they can take to further your agenda. I told Boehner and Co. that they must not allow gun legislation to come to a vote; a simple and clear course of action that will protect our interests, for now. Though it probably is just throwing pearls before swine, I suppose these points could be used to support arguments; just remember that most Statists have no respect for the self-determination represented by the 2nd Amendment, so claiming "infringement" will win few arguments with them.

TCB

gkainz
January 9, 2013, 09:08 PM
"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."

1) The right to acquire and possess any firearm, it's ammunition, or it's accessories chosen by its user may not be restricted

TCB

Might I suggest removing the apostrophe from the "it's" above ... Denotes "it is" ...

barnbwt
January 9, 2013, 10:14 PM
Bingo!!! :D

barnbwt
January 15, 2013, 08:15 PM
"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."

1) The right to acquire and possess any firearm, its ammunition, or any of its accessories chosen by the user may not be restricted

2) Explanation of the purpose for the use of arms may not be compelled

3) The right to acquire and possess any firearm deemed proper for personal purposes may not be restricted

4) Arms may be borne at any time the user finds them necessary for their purpose

5*) The right to own, purchase, sell or otherwise acquire by means not defrauding or depriving another any type of firearm or destructive device.

6) Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability for a given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user and may not be legally challenged by any authority.

7) No measure to catalogue or register the arms possessed by individuals may be undertaken

8) No restrictions on citizens or their militia may be implied from these articles

The passage of new repressive legislation in New York should give us new inspiration for firearm-related activities that are protected under a strict intepretation of the 2nd Amendment. I have come to realize the dangers of registration of individuals' firearms to the 2nd over the last week, so I have added a provision barring this. I still feel this exercise is important in making our common beliefs as well-defined as possible.

*Is this provision redundant with number 1?

TCB

DammitBoy
January 15, 2013, 08:51 PM
"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."

1) The right to acquire and/or possess any firearm may not be restricted.

2) Explanation of the purpose for the use of arms may not be compelled or defined by the government for purposes of restriction.

3) No State may make a law that infringes upon this enumerated Constitutional Right.

4) Arms may be borne at any time the user finds them necessary for their purpose in any manner of carry, open or concealed.

5) The right to own, purchase, sell or otherwise acquire by means not defrauding or depriving another any type of firearm or destructive device.

6) Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability for a given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user and may not be legally challenged by any authority.

7) No measure to catalogue or register the arms possessed by individuals may be undertaken.

8) No restrictions on citizens or their militia may be implied from these articles.

9) No restrictions on the ammunition or parts or accessories meant solely to infringe upon the right to bear arms may be undertaken.

10) No undo taxation meant to penalize or restrict the right to bear arms may be undertaken.

revision 3.4

barnbwt
January 15, 2013, 09:42 PM
1) The right to acquire or possess any firearm may not be restricted or exhorbitantly taxed.
"and" to "or" for broader scope. I'm not sure if "prohibitively taxed" might be better here (i.e. even a modest tax may be "prohibitive" for a poor person, and thus grant them an exemption). Do you think we could combine 1, 5, 9, and 10 somehow? They seem similar in meaning (though not identical).

9) No restrictions on the ammunition, parts, or accessories meant solely to infringe upon the right to bear arms of firearms may be undertaken, nor may they be prohibitively taxed.

This may be somewhat vague (since there is no definition of "infringement" provided us by our founders(--huge oversight, IMO--and that is a whole 'nuther can'o'worms :D). I added a line about taxes here to prevent their use to bar access to gun necessities. Are you intending to allow for restriction of certain items (i.e. autosears, AP ammo, flamethrowers, etc.) by specifying "infringement of the 2nd" as the criteria by which regulations may be tested?

If posters overwhelmingly agree with that caveat, I'll add a line exempting specific functionalities (i.e. automatic fire, power levels, incendiary) from 2nd Amendment protections. I don't want to add too many specifics yet, for fear of over-complicating an already contentious issue, and losing agreement on where we all stand ;). By keeping the language for what is protected "un-limiting", any restrictions would require subsequent amendments (i.e. they can't just be rammed through a packed NYC congress in 12 hours;)). That helps protect us from incremental restrictions.

I also want to come up with some broad, futureproof definition for a "firearm," or more precisely, "small arm," which is what I believe is expressely protected for us citizens (as opposed to planes, tanks, and nukes ;)). "Man-portable device capable of intentionally delivering focused energy onto a target at a desired range" is kind of a mouthful, but somewhat close to what I'm going for (I think :o).

Also looking forward, there should be some declaration somewhere (Gunowners' BOR or other) restricting the use of autonomous drones; the RKBA against tyranny is moot if it's by an endless stream of predators spit out by a desperate regime. Just the Britains used foriegn Hessian Mercs to fight American Patriots, and Gadhafi used African Mercs to suppress his own people, drones (especially autonomous drones being developed now) constitute a grave threat to liberty by being utterly beholden to the regimes that control them--and not the citizens of the nation they operate in. Maybe a modified 4th amendment barring the "quartering" of autonomous military offensive equipment in/over any state? Hope that's not too "sci-fy" to be taken seriously by folks out there :D

TCB

"revision 3.4 " Already? Damn. Can't imagine how many sheets were wadded up in Philly back-in-the-day :D

barnbwt
January 15, 2013, 10:22 PM
"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."

2) Explanation of the purpose for the use of arms may not be compelled or defined for purposes of restriction.

3) The right to acquire, possess, or secure any firearms deemed proper for an individual 's purposes may not be restricted or exhorbitantly taxed.

3a) No State may make a law that infringes upon this enumerated Constitutional Right.

4) Arms may be borne at any time the user finds them necessary for their purpose in any manner of their choosing, visible, concealed, or secured separately.

6) Aside from fair chase and applicable game laws determined by the states individually, suitability of a weapon for any given purpose is at the sole discretion of the user.

7) No measure to catalogue or register the arms possessed by individuals may be undertaken. No record of their legal transfer may be made or kept.

8) No restrictions on citizens or their militia may be implied from these articles.

9) No restriction on the ammunition, parts, or accessories meant solely to infringe upon the right to bear arms may be undertaken.



Rolled no. 1 into 3 (nearly identical wording)

I realized nos. 3 and 4 were written such that storage/transport seperate from the user wouldn't be protected (i.e. wear it or lose it :D)

3a is I think guaranteed by the Supremacy clause of the 14th, placing Constitutional protections above State restrictions of the same (again, I think :o)

Rolled 5 into 3 (nearly identical wording)

Clarified wording in 6 (For me, at least)

Added transfers to no. 7 record-keeping prohibition

9) really needs a broader scope; restrictions are never described by their promoters as being solely intended to restrict 2nd Amendment rights

I think 10) can be rolled into 1) after adding the tax protection note.

Good Stuff, here, DM, thanks for the suggestions. I can already see we've closed in on one idea, since 1, 3, 5, and 10 all seem compatible with eachother (which is why I've tried to combine them into 3): gunowners here widely believe the 2nd Amendment implies the acquisition, possession, and storage of guns should be unrestricted, and without onerous taxes.

TCB

k_dawg
January 15, 2013, 10:30 PM
Start at the basics:

Any lawful citizen may own any non NFA firearm.

Any requirements necessary to own and have said firearm in any State, City or other location, must be limited to the restrictions of a Voter ID card; and must be 'shall issue' within 14 days of application.

Skribs
January 15, 2013, 10:40 PM
My only problem with the way the 2A is written is that the term "militia" wasn't stated explicitly in the text.

"Weapons are necessary for defense against foreign invasion, and as a last resort against a tyrannical government or for protection at the lowest level, and are useful for a variety of other purposes. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Those in public office that would seek to infringe the right to bear arms shall be removed from office."

barnbwt
January 15, 2013, 11:13 PM
Glad to hear from you, K_dawg,
I thought about putting the word "citizen" in several of the items (namely 3) since I don't think RKBA is intrinsically protected for non-citizens--but I didn't want to add that wrinkle right away. Now that there is some consensus about that particular, I'd like to consider expressly guaranteeing RKBA to American Citizens. The Constitution, after all, protects American citizens first and foremost.

However, I can see the other side of that argument could claim (rightly?) that the 2nd Amendment is God-given, and independent of nationality, and that even foriegn-residents constitute "the people" whose rights should not be infringed. Citizens' vs. Aliens' rights is complicated, and maybe beyond the scope of this discussion. I'm not sure, though, so I'd like to hear from some others whether or not we should address this here.

Any requirements necessary to own and have said firearm in any State, City or other location, must be limited to the restrictions of a Voter ID card; and must be 'shall issue' within 14 days of application.

I wholeheartedly agree, and that would be guaranteed under items 3, 4, and 9, as I read it. As far as a Voter ID card, that's probably beyond the scope of the 2nd Amendment, so maybe, "llimited to the ocal requirements of voter elgibiility in national elections" instead? Get ACORN working for the RKBA crowd when they register people :D? I believe you are trying to guarantee these rights specifically for US citizens, right? (just making sure I'm understanding you properly)

Hey, Skribs,
My only problem with the 2A is that the Founders appear to try to justify the right in its definition, which I've always thought weakened its authority greatly. Who cares why the right exists (for the security of a free state), that's what the Federalist Papers are for (granted, they didn't know that at the time :D). I wish they'd said either:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
or
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms as a militia shall not be infringed"

to make clear what they intended to extent of govt to exclude. Instead, we're left trying to decipher their intent, when, in reality, it was probably pretty clear what was meant to all in the room at the time (they did have to sign it, after all). The First wasn't written "A free press being necessary to the accountability of a government..." and there are no qualms about what its intent was today.

Do you have any suggestions for "the list"? Oh, here it is:
"Those in public office that would seek to infringe the right to bear arms shall be removed from office"
According to Wikipedia:
"Article Three (US Constitution) also protects the right to trial by jury in all criminal cases, and defines the crime of treason." Some more digging revealed that treason is only commited by waging war on the States, aid/comfort to enemy, or allying with the enemy (despite what many think is treasonous nowadays :D). I thought for sure there was something in there about adhering to the Constitution, but I must be looking in the wrong place :confused:. If not, we should immediately send our Senators the following Amendment for ratification:

"Those in public office found to have sought violation of the Constitution shall be removed from office"

TCB

klyph
January 16, 2013, 12:43 AM
Here you go:

No government, corporation, individual or group shall make any law concerning the possession of arms, or the acquisition and commerce thereof.

That about covers it all.

DammitBoy
January 16, 2013, 12:01 PM
3a is I think guaranteed by the Supremacy clause of the 14th, placing Constitutional protections above State restrictions of the same

Except for the fact that nearly every state in the union already infringes on that federally protected right.

barnbwt
January 16, 2013, 09:55 PM
True, the States unduly restrict some of our inalienable freedoms, and the Federal government runs roughshod over many of the states' responsibilities. Constitutionally protected rights are themselves merely paper, no different than gun laws, and easily disobeyed by unchallenged criminals. The need to hold our officials accountable to the rules governing their offices is even more important than the rules themselves. That's probably a topic for the Activism side of the equation--though I wouldn't mind promoting these as strong rules for our leaders to submit to:

"Those in public office found to have sought violation of the Constitution shall be removed from office and barred from service for 10 years" (the 'ol Ostracism Clause*:cool:)

"No authority within the States may infringe upon an enumerated Constitutional Right"

But we're drifting off topic, here :D

I kinda want to add a reworded version of the TJ quote in my signature, guaranteeing without restrictions the RKBA to any free person in the Union, which would extend this basic right to anyone with no legal guardian but themselves (i.e. no prisoners or uncontrolled crazies). I'm not sure how to word it, though. This would have the benefit of both preventing unjust regulation of citizens' arms, as well as forcing the state to physically control those among us untrustworthy of firearms use (since legal guardians bear liability for the actions of their charge).

TCB

*"In Athens during the time of democracy, the process of ostracism was devised in which citizens could vote someone who was considered a nuisance or a threat into banishment from the city without prejudice for ten years, after which he was allowed to return." -some web encyclopedia. I've also heard that nearly all prominent/popular office-holders got this treatement at the end of their careers, which prevented them from building "dynasties" as easily.

If you enjoyed reading about "Drafting a Gunowners Bill of Rights" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!