Ks5shooter
Contributing Member
https://blog.k-var.com/news/hawaii-anti-gun-lawmakers-push-resolution-to-repeal-2a/
Loonwulf any chance of this passing?
Loonwulf any chance of this passing?
Last edited:
You are conflating a state called constitutional convention with ratification by state conventions. States can ratify amendments either via their legislature or by selecting delegates to a constitutional amendment ratification convention--the ratification method is picked by Congress in its amendment proposal (only once) or specified by a Convention of the States to ratify amendments. As you say correctly, 38 states are currently required.The only way to repeal the 2nd amendment is by amending the Constitution.
This is that process...
1. A proposal may be submitted for consideration when approved by 2/3 of the States (34 out of 50) or by 2/3 vote in the House and Senate.
2. Once the proposal to amend is approved, if it is, then it becomes ratified and effective, ONLY, after being approved by 3/4 of the States (38 out of 50).
No State has the legal authority to "repeal" the 2nd amendment by itself and it would be shot down, quickly, by the Supreme Court.
There is another way, via a Constitutional convention proposed by 27 States, but, that has never been used.
Yes, and that would be practically impossible to do. Amending the constitution requires a broad consensus throughout the country, and the antigunners don't have that.The only way to repeal the 2nd amendment is by amending the Constitution.
Not exactly. In the case of an Article V convention, the procedure is as follows:You are also correct in that once a Constitutional convention is called by the States, the Federal government is out of the loop and has no input in the ratification procedure.
You are conflating a state called constitutional convention with ratification by state conventions. States can ratify amendments either via their legislature or by selecting delegates to a constitutional amendment ratification convention--the ratification method is picked by Congress in its amendment proposal (only once) or specified by a Convention of the States to ratify amendments. As you say correctly, 38 states are currently required.
An Article V amending convention by the states requires 2/3's, or 34 states presently to call for a convention. Then the convention proposes what ratification method, either convention or legislative, is to be used and 3/4's of the states have to ratify as usual. In that procedure, the federal government has no say so at all in the amendment or ratification procedures.
It is interesting how some Pacific islands have forgot the lesson of W.W. II.
New Zealand is essentially defenseless against another major war and are relying on their location and Australia as their primary defenses.
The island nations close to China have a much different attitude about the possibility or probability of another war due to Chinas increasing territorial aggression such as claiming the entire China Sea.
Consider the results if China makes good on it's long claim to Taiwan and invades it.
Missiles put Hawaii well within range and Hawaii is sure to be heavily targeted. Hawaii, of course, will be well defended by our military due to it's strategic location and major military bases.
However Hawaii's politicians are also taking it for granted that another war will not reach their shores. With Hawaii's heavy dependency on tourism a serious threat of war could shut down commercial air travel causing a collapse of the economy. Even a short term threat say of only few months will result in major social upheaval and totally overwhelm the police and civil government resources. How well with the Federal Government be able to restore some type of order is questionable. The military will be heavily committed honoring our defense treaties with the island nations and the United States mainland, especially the West Coast will be under serious threat,
Hadnt heard about it yet, which says something since Ive been in a number of gun stores since then.https://blog.k-var.com/news/hawaii-anti-gun-lawmakers-push-resolution-to-repeal-2a/
Loonwulf any chance of this passing?
“…any chance of this passing?”https://blog.k-var.com/news/hawaii-anti-gun-lawmakers-push-resolution-to-repeal-2a/
Loonwulf any chance of this passing?
It's been a while since I read anything on the matter, but weren't the first ten Amendments basically a requirement for the states to agree to a federal government?
If so, then removing one of them invalidates the Union entirely, as the conditions are no longer being met.
Of course, those conditions are long gone now, in spirit, as our rights have been regulated away in every sneaky manner possible, but to actually remove one of the key elements that allowed the nation to come together in the first place...
* Except for the provision giving the states equal representation in the Senate.The amendment procedure can be used to amend anything in the constitution.
* Except for the provision giving the states equal representation in the Senate.
But there is a "nuclear option" if an Article V convention is convened. The entire Constitution could be scrapped and a new document substituted -- complete with its own method of ratification. (This is exactly what happened with the original constitutional convention of 1787, which, you may remember, was called to propose amendments to the old Articles of Confederation.) In such a scenario, the 2nd Amendment would be one of the first things on the chopping block. Instead, you would probably get "rights" to education and health care.
This is what drives me nuts about all the people on the right calling for an Article V convention. They would be opening a Pandora's Box with unforeseen consequences. And for what? Term limits and a balanced budget? These things have dubious advantages at best. It can even be argued that congressional seniority (the opposite of term limits) and the ability to run budget deficits are useful tools for conservatives.
The ratification process itself could be part of the "proposed amendments" put forth by such a convention. For example, it would be quite plausible for the convention to specify that its work would go into effect if approved by a national referendum of the entire American people (a nationwide popular vote). And how could this be challenged if the Supreme Court (and indeed the entire old judicial system) no longer existed under the new constitution? New courts would have to be set up, and they would be under no obligation to uphold the procedures under the old constitution. To the contrary -- they would have to apply the new ratification procedures. In other words, think of this as a bootstrap operation. (Which is exactly what took place in 1787!)Article V amendments still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states to go into effect and approved by the convention itself, just as any amendment proposed by Congress.
The ratification process itself could be part of the "proposed amendments" put forth by such a convention. For example, it would be quite plausible for the convention to specify that its work would go into effect if approved by a national referendum of the entire American people (a nationwide popular vote). And how could this be challenged if the Supreme Court (and indeed the entire old judicial system) no longer existed under the new constitution? New courts would have to be set up, and they would be under no obligation to uphold the procedures under the old constitution. To the contrary -- they would have to apply the new ratification procedures. In other words, think of this as a bootstrap operation. (Which is exactly what took place in 1787!)
An "amendment" could consist of deleting the entire text of the existing constitution and replacing it with something else entirely.
The great miscalculation of the Article V convention proponents is in assuming that the bulk of the delegates to such a convention would be conservatives. What if the "blue states" predominated, population-wise, and the convention ended up filled with radicals? An Article V convention is fraught with untold perils -- certainly from a RKBA point of view.