There Are No Gun Laws...


PDA






CmdrSlander
April 2, 2013, 07:26 PM
Let's imagine we are back at square one... no, square zero, you are writing the Constitution for a new nation, how do you enumerate the Right to Bear arms and what, if any limitations do you place on it?

If you enjoyed reading about "There Are No Gun Laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jerkface11
April 2, 2013, 07:29 PM
I'd include something about not infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

HOOfan_1
April 2, 2013, 07:30 PM
Well considering Thomas Jefferson and a few others originally wanted the Bill of Rights to ban standing armies during peace time, and considering the Second Amendment was based off of this part of the Virginia Constitution

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 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.

I think it wouldn't have been too hard to convince some people that the people shouldn't be denied the arms which a standing army might possess.

CmdrSlander
April 2, 2013, 07:33 PM
Here's mine:

The right of the people, save the mentally incompetent or criminally convicted, to manufacture, purchase, possess, transport, and carry arms in whatever many they deem suitable shall never be questioned or infringed. The natural right of self defense, and defense of one's home and property shall never be questioned or infringed and there is no duty to retreat.

scramasax
April 2, 2013, 07:35 PM
You can blame the income tax and standing army on Lincoln.

IlikeSA
April 2, 2013, 09:19 PM
There shall be no law to impede, prohibit, or infringe upon the natural right of all people to keep, possess, carry, manufacture, or modify any tool that can be utilized in the defense of the state or individual.

Texan Scott
April 2, 2013, 09:31 PM
"It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people.

Texan Scott
April 2, 2013, 09:33 PM
"It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own and carry weapons to protect and provide for themselves, their families, and others, to defend the safety of people and property, and preserve common law and order. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or infringed by any act of government, to include regulation, record keeping or registration, narrow definition, taxation, or any other act which has the intent or effect of limiting or impeding this right of free people."

barnbwt
April 2, 2013, 09:35 PM
Drafting A Gunowner's Bill of Rights (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=693743)

A bit dusty, but some of the entries were pretty good (much like the actual constitution :D). The goal was to get a better bead on what we'd like the 2nd Amendment to specifically protect, in addition to the limitless powers implied (and frequently misinterpreted or exploited) by the words "shall not be infringed". I was hoping to better define for myself, and for others, exactly what advocating for the 2nd should mean for each of us.

TCB

JVaughn
April 2, 2013, 09:45 PM
I guess since whatever you write will be over analyzed forever by those who want to take our rights, make it foolproof.

Congress, the states, or the courts shall make no law restricting the right of the people to keep and bear arms, with the exception of explosive or radioactive devices capable of large scale destructive force, and unless such restriction be placed equally upon the military and police forces.

I'm pretty sure that is what the original version meant, but a few people in government seemed to miss it.

BigBore44
April 2, 2013, 09:56 PM
"The Right of a free citizen to defend ones life, liberty, freedoms, families, or property by any means that individual deems appropriate shall never be governed or regulated at any time for any reason. Any act or law by the government to limit that defense by taxation or regulation shall be deemed tyrannical and unconstitutional. Any governing body or member who proposes or supports such an act or law whether privately or publicly shall be stripped of all titles, lands and freedoms."

AlexanderA
April 2, 2013, 10:18 PM
You can blame the income tax and standing army on Lincoln.

Well, no. The first American standing or regular army (if you don't count the revolutionary Continental Army) was the First American Regiment founded on June 3, 1784, under the Articles of Confederation. This regiment was "adopted" as the U.S. regular army under the Constitution on September 29, 1789. When Lincoln took office in early 1861, the Regular Army consisted of 10 regiments of infantry, 5 regiments of cavalry, 4 regiments of artillery, and other units. (Nevertheless, the Civil War was fought largely by state militia units -- Lincoln only increased the Regular Army incrementally.)

It's true that the first income tax was instituted in 1862, under Lincoln. But it only lasted 10 years and was eventually declared unconstitutional. Today's income tax dates from 1913, with the adoption of the 16th Amendment. It only became a central fact of American life with the Revenue Act of 1942 (which started the withholding system).

kwguy
April 2, 2013, 11:15 PM
I guess since whatever you write will be over analyzed forever by those who want to take our rights, make it foolproof.

To make it foolproof, I would say something like:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.

JRH6856
April 3, 2013, 12:18 AM
The right of the People, individually and collectively to keep and bear arms, either openly or concealed, for their personal or collective defense, is a fundamental natural right and shall not be restricted, abridged or infringed in any manner by legislative action or executive order at any level; or by judicial order, except when restricted by due process of law due to mental incompetency, or violent behavior or the stated threat thereof.

crazyjennyblack
April 3, 2013, 12:48 AM
It is the unquestionable natural right of all free people to own, manufacture, purchase, trade, give, transport and carry weapons, either concealed or openly. This is a right that belongs to both individuals, and to the people as a whole, provided that individuals are of sound mind and have not been convicted before an elected judge and a jury of their peers of a violent crime. This right includes but is not limited to the purposes of protection of self, family, friends, property, common law, and the safety of the public in general. This right shall not be abridged, denied, or limited by any act of any branch of any government. This right shall not be restricted, hampered, or infringed by any act of taxation, monetary fee or penalty, regulation, record keeping, or narrow definition. No prohibition or classification of weapons by type shall be imposed by any governmental entity. No prohibition of manufacture, purchase, trade, gift, transportation, or carry of weapons shall be based on the place these activities occur. Furthermore, private entities which employ people as volunteers or as paid workers shall not be permitted to regulate or forbid the possession, carry, or transportation of weapons openly or concealed upon one's person or in or upon a personal vehicle, commerical vehicle, or other method of conveyance or transportation.

As it is the natural right of the people to arm themselves, the people are the primary defense of these United States. The people as a whole, both males and single females, from ages 18 to 40, who are physically fit, without violent criminal background, and sound of mind are to be considered "the militia." This militia is the natural, and safe defense of a free state. Standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty, and in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Therefore, without a declaration of war from Congress, a standing army is prohibited both within these United States and outside the borders of these United States. All standing militia units revert to the control of the state or territory from which they originate, and their service cannot be called upon by the federal government or the President except by a declaration of war from Congress. Except in the event of foreign intervention on the soil or within the territorial waters of these United States, it shall be unlawful for any group, unit, or officer of the militia or any standing army to operate with the force of arms on the soil or within the territorial waters of these United States. Any attempt to use the militia, army, or other armed power of government against the people or to regulate them, except for the elected police or sheriff's department of a city or county, shall be considered treason.

Sol
April 3, 2013, 01:03 AM
If there was a reset of sorts I would make sure to include a right to keep and bear arms for self defense, sporting, hunting, repelling tyranny etc. There would also be a provision that allows civilians to have the current battle rifle the military uses.

Bill_Rights
April 3, 2013, 01:21 AM
The connection between state militias, standing armies and civilian gun possession bears some weight. HOOfan_1 was getting into that I think it wouldn't have been too hard to convince some people that the people shouldn't be denied the arms which a standing army might possess. I think HOOfan_1 might have meant "standby militias" when he said "standing armies".

My point is that state militias at least used to expect the citizens to bring their own light or man-carried firearms. Therefore, these firearms, at least some of them, ought to be military grade, at least in firepower, if not in overall ruggedness, standardization, form and appearance.

I have heard from an authority (lawyer Mark R. Levin, a radio talk show host) that the original purpose of state militias was to oppose and keep within bounds the power of the federal (central) government, by the states. These militias would do this with the force of arms of their own citizens, if it came to that.

As a matter of fact, the federal government has been involved in foreign wars almost continuously since the 2nd Revolutionary War (the so-call War of 1812 against the British), so it can arguably be said that there never has been a peacetime standing army, because there never has been any peace. Sorry; that's the world we live in. Even if there had been an intention to disband the federal military after peace breaks out, this would take a few years to accomplish. Then, upon forecasting foreign hostilities, or the likely possibility thereof, it would take a few years to reconstitute a formidable military. So by the time you add in the spin-down and spin-up time delays, this pretty much fills any few-year peacetime periods that might have occurred. On top of this, we've had this little thing called the Industrial Revolution happen since the USA was founded. This makes it so that any viable military has to be continuously racing to keep up with technology (the invention of steel for large structures by Andrew Carnegie to build the first bridge across the Mississippi River in 1854, for example). Therefore, as a practical matter it cannot make sense to periodicallty disband and regenerate the federal military.

So, as long as we're re-writing the Constitution, we might want to take care of this little standing army issue. If the goal of the first framers was to prevent a standing army being used within the USA for domestic political purposes, with force of arms, then that can be taken care of, and has been: We have discussed "posse comitatas" (spelling?) here many times.

JRH6856
April 3, 2013, 01:24 AM
To make it foolproof, I would say something like:

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." :D

Sorry, couldn't resist.
I think you got right. The Constitution should state a principle in general terms. The statute law should express the details in accordance with the general principle.

When Texas adopted the current constitution in 1876, we made the mistake of making it too detailed in stating what govt. could and could not do. Ever since, we have had to pass a constitutional amendment or two or three in just about every election just to get mundane things done. We may have the most amended constitution in the country.

helitack32f1
April 3, 2013, 11:33 PM
I would have done it as it is in the 2nd amendment. But then, I would assume that idiots would eventually rule the world so then I would include 62 pages explaining EXACTLY what the 2nd amendment was intended to say, especially when it comes to the phrase "...shall not be infringed". After which I would add that there should be a death penalty to anyone proven to have knowingly and maliciously infringed on our 2nd amendment rights.

CapnMac
April 4, 2013, 04:58 AM
After battering through several drafts trying for both brevity and precision:

"To preserve citizen's liberty, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Ok, so "citizen" needs to have an explicit definition of "law abiding, non-impaired, non-parenteral persons" or, perhaps "those in good standing with the laws of the nation and the several States" would be simpler. Except that latter could be expanded to any sort, and volume of laws; the previous speaks only to disabilities.

But, I'd probably also campaign to ditch our present, highly-flawed misdemeanor/felony system with a tripartite system of lex civis--administrative & municipal crimes; 'tort' crimes, and lex humanis (or lex corpus) crimes of violence. And I'd lump all the 'aggraveted" or 'weapons bearing' and violent crimes into that last category. That way, you could not plead a felony down to a misdemeanor; only to a lesser violent crime.

But, that's just my 2; quite a few differ.

Shoot, I can trim USC & CFR by just getting this inserted in there somewhere:
"The several State shall endeavor to have as uniform set of laws as their citizens shall reasonably allow." But, I'd like to see all the various Agencies and Bureaus out of the regulatory business and more into the "setting standards" business.

Drail
April 4, 2013, 09:09 AM
The problem we are seeing has nothing to do with how the Bill Of Rights was written. It is because when our Govt. steps over that line they are not dealt with severely. It's the same reason we have crime.

yokel
April 4, 2013, 06:04 PM
Indeed, the pro-gun community is fractured and niche-oriented, the Second Amendment has been relegated to a "special interest" represented by a "gun lobby" and there is no evidence whatsoever of any Militia doing its job to secure our free state.

If military-pattern semi-automatic rifles are a fair litmus test for the pro-gun rights movement, the movement is failing, pathetically.

We must be fully committed to the elimination of all bans and measures that restrict law-abiding citizens from owning legally obtained arms as the ultimate aim of all we do.

The opponent just can't be permitted to set the agenda for relegation, marginalization, and stigmatization of any firearms that an individual soldier can carry.

Jim Watson
April 4, 2013, 06:08 PM
Jerry Pournelle says of such efforts to redraft laws that the new version should conclude "...and this time we really mean it."

The-Reaver
April 4, 2013, 06:38 PM
. "The Right of a free citizen to defend ones life, liberty, freedoms, families, or property by any means that individual deems appropriate shall never be governed or regulated at any time for any reason. Any act or law by the government to limit that defense by taxation or regulation shall be deemed tyrannical and unconstitutional. Any governing body or member who proposes or supports such an act or law whether privately or publicly shall be stripped of all titles, lands and freedoms."


Bigbore if I may add to the very last sentence. " and hanged for treason "

Now that sounds good to me.

JRH6856
April 4, 2013, 07:29 PM
Let's imagine we are back at square one... no, square zero, you are writing the Constitution for a new nation, how do you enumerate the Right to Bear arms and what, if any limitations do you place on it?

Before undertaking the writing of a Constitution, it would be well to first formulate a clear understanding of what that Constitution shall and shall not do. What is its purpose and how is that purpose accomplished.

From the responses in this thread, it appears IMHO that a lot of the respondents have not done that. That is, unless the sole purpose of the Constitution is to protect the right to keep and bear arms, because some of these suggestions directly violate other equally important fundamental rights that a workable constitution would seek to protect.

jamesjames
April 4, 2013, 07:52 PM
Citizenship, as originally defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specified that you were a free male, head of household, property owner. In other words, you had a stake in your community and the new country. With that stakeholder status came the grave responsibilities of representing yourself in a court of law, exercising the franchise of voting, and all the other civic responsibilities enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Many of the recent mass shooters have been mentally-ill young people who didn't have a job, own property, or have a substantial stake in their community or country. This may sound very retro, but perhaps the right to keep and bear arms (and all the other protections of the Bill of Rights) are really meaningful, only appreciated by, and are only worthy of adults who own property, have a job or own a business, or can demonstrate this type of "stakeholder" status for citizenship.

JRH6856
April 4, 2013, 09:35 PM
Citizenship, as originally defined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, specified that you were a free male, head of household, property owner. In other words, you had a stake in your community and the new country. With that stakeholder status came the grave responsibilities of representing yourself in a court of law, exercising the franchise of voting, and all the other civic responsibilities enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Many of the recent mass shooters have been mentally-ill young people who didn't have a job, own property, or have a substantial stake in their community or country. This may sound very retro, but perhaps the right to keep and bear arms (and all the other protections of the Bill of Rights) are really meaningful, only appreciated by, and are only worthy of adults who own property, have a job or own a business, or can demonstrate this type of "stakeholder" status for citizenship.

That doesn't sound very democratic, or very progressive. Does sound like the germ of a good idea. Needs a sound definition of "property" and "ownership" :uhoh:

Another concern is "taxation without representation is tyranny". If this principle is followed, limiting the vote would also severely limit the tax base because you could not tax those who could not vote.

If you enjoyed reading about "There Are No Gun Laws..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!