States aren't united on guns. Why pretend?

[Squeaky Wheel]

I'm sure I'll catch a lot of hell for this, but it's where I honestly believe things will eventually end up. I submit these thoughts with the hopes of being respectful to different points of view. I am a gun owner, and have been for many years, yet I think that many hard-core RKBA folks make us all look 'unreasonable' when they demand that everyone has a right to .50 BMG, AP ammo, etc.

Eventually, I believe that there will a Constitutional amendment to clarify the federal "minimum" rights that exist in all states. I also believe that ultimately each state will have the latitude to tweak their state laws beyond the minimum rights stated in an updated constitution.

For example, I could foresee a constitutional amendment that basically says "an individual can own revolvers, semi-auto handguns (pistol) with magazine capacity <= X, shotguns, and rifles that do not exceed .30-06 (or whatever) and magazine capacity of 20 (or whatever number) rounds. These are minimal individual gun ownership rights that shall exist in all 50 states." Then, allow individual states to adopt their own state-specific AWB or whatever makes them happy.

Let's face it -- not all states are the same. What's wrong with letting each state tweak the laws to best suit the citizens of their state? I know that hard-core RKBA will slam me with "what about the poor California guy who wants to own a .50 BMG"? (Don't know if citizens of CA can currently own .50 BMGs, so it could be a bad example). If your state laws cause you enough discomfort to leave the state, at least you could.

In my opinion, it's a joke to say that all states are "united" over RKBA. Why keep pretending? What's wrong with updating the constitution to guarantee a minimum level of rights that must exist in all 50 states and then let each state individually fight out what's best for them?

This would allow anti-gun states like California and Illinois to add as many restrictions as they want, so long as none of their state-level restrictions violate the updated Constitution. By the same token, more gun friendly states could potentially say that "we have no state-level restrictions".

Your thoughts on how things will play out long term?

 

[youngda9]

Do you understand what it takes to pass a Constitutional Ammendment ?

 

[PRM]

I don't think it will ever happen. Washington can't even pass a budget, let alone change the Constitution.

Your more likely to see the Supreme Court get packed with liberal judges that will interpret as they see fit and damn the rest of us!!!

 

[Spats McGee]

I don't think there will be another amendment to clarify the 2A. The 2A already sets the federal minimum on the RKBA, just like the 4A does on search and seizure. The 2A just doesn't have the body of case law from SCOTUS that the 4A has.

 

[readyeddy]

Trolling on Christmas day. All time low.

Here's my thoughtful response. No compromise. Not one inch.

 

[Pacsd]

I don't want anything to do with other states guns laws. Ours is quite liberal. Illinois, ****, NY? No thanks.

 

[gripper]

I gotta concur- no compromises...period.

 

[-v-]

"Well, just small compromises on your right 5th amendment right, there are just some situations where the police/local government/etc. just needs your personal property to become their property"

"Well, what REALLY constitutes unreasonable search and seizure? I mean if you look black/hispanic, and since more blacks/hispanics are incarcerated then whites, it follows that being a minority is reason enough to search your house for drugs/stolen property/bodies without a warrant"

...You really don't want to go down that road, no one does.

 

[Pilot]

To the OP. If you believe my 2A rights should be further restricted, as they already are very restricted since at least 1934, then maybe my 1A rights should be further restricted. Say, I'm not allowed to verbally, and publicly disagree with the current Adminstration's stance on Tax Policy, Energy Policy, Immigration Policy, Firearms Policy, to name a few. Just limit my public speech to coincide with some of their views. What harm is that?

When a state decides on gun policy, I can move to another one that is more to my liking. When the Feds decides on gun policy that I don't like, where am I going to go? We're not talking about .50 cals, we're talkinmg about magazines that hold more than ten rounds and semi-automatic rifles.

 

[Ehtereon11B]

Time, place, manner have been used to restrict/allow freedoms on every law the Supreme Court has looked at. Especially in regards to the First Amendment. The only "restrictions" I see that are needed on the second align with time, place, and manner. Should everyone be able to own a full auto in any caliber? Yep. If they pass the checks currently set by the ATF I don't see an issue. Except that $200 tax stamp. But do they need M240s behind the headlights to deal with slow Chinese drivers? No. Not the time, place or manner for them.

 

[MICHAEL T]

Founding fathers Gave us the 1st 10 amendments as our RIGHTS not to be tampered with period. These are to be off limits to change. Its time people of America stand up and tell Washington DC to back off .

 

[cbrgator]

OP,
Do you have any idea how inconsistent these statements are:

Let's face it -- not all states are the same.

In my opinion, it's a joke to say that all states are "united" over RKBA.

with this one:

What's wrong with updating the constitution to guarantee a minimum level of rights that must exist in all 50 states and then let each state individually fight out what's best for them?

You can't assert that states are divided over RKBA, then suggest the likelihood of amendment, a mechanism which requires a 3/4 majority of the states. It's entirely nonsensical.

Is this a joke?

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

What's wrong with updating the constitution to guarantee a minimum level of rights that must exist in all 50 states and then let each state individually fight out what's best for them?

The Constitution is fine as it is. We just need to start actually following it. The Bill of Rights is very clear and explicit. I think that is what some people feel the problem is. The 4A mentions "unreasonable". Ok, that opens up the discussion as to what "reasonable" is. I think the Founders intended that. But the 2A says "shall not be infringed". That's already clear and direct. It doesn't need clarification or explaining. The meaning of the words is perfectly clear: government may not makes laws controlling the owning or carrying of guns.

The problems arose when people just didn't want that to be true. So they started ignoring it. And people let them. The road to where we are now started a pretty long time ago. The fundamental issue is that our government, courts, and even people don't want the Second Amendment to say exactly what is says. It's too plain and clear for them already, and it makes them uncomfortable.

 

[Mayvik]

Founding fathers Gave us the 1st 10 amendments as our RIGHTS not to be tampered with period. These are to be off limits to change. Its time people of America stand up and tell Washington DC to back off .

No...they documented some of the rights that we all have by virtue of being born human. The point and major distinction is that these rights exist whether or not a government chooses to allow its citizens to exercise them.

To OP: No. May as well just play the secession card if you go down that road.

 

[velojym]

The point of this right (and the others in varying degrees) is the protection of the rights of the *individual*.
It doesn't matter if we're talking about Illinois or Alabama. Just because the inhabitants of that state are virtual slaves to those in the big city doesn't mean it's ok to compromise on their rights. It's a matter of principle, not invisible state lines.

 

[Squeaky Wheel]

Do you understand what it takes to pass a Constitutional Ammendment ?

Yep, and that's why I used the term 'eventually'.

There are a lot more people (anti-gunners) squawking about ALL gun rights lately. Many that I run across are very intelligent people, but who are very ignorant of non-criminal use of guns. If our 2nd amendment rights are being left to defend by Wayne's PR speeches and a bunch of foot stomping, "madder than hell" gun nuts (as we're all viewed by the antis), then I really believe that we will lose some rights. Sadly, perception is reality to the masses and I don't believe that the pro-gun rights crowd has much leverage in the media wars where the bulk of this gets played out.

 

[Squeaky Wheel]

To OP: No. May as well just play the secession card if you go down that road.

It would not surprise me at all to see things going down that road in the next 20 or 30 years-- and not just with regards to gun rights.

 

[Squeaky Wheel]

I don't think it will ever happen. Washington can't even pass a budget, let alone change the Constitution.

Your more likely to see the Supreme Court get packed with liberal judges that will interpret as they see fit and damn the rest of us!!!

Agreed on the Supreme Court. The recent ruling that the 2nd amendment right applied to th individual passed by 5-4. That's no margin-- one change of position and the ruling would be very different.

 

[gym]

Much of this depends on where you live. In Fl and many other Southern and Western States, guns are a fact of daily life. As I mentioned, we just hit 1 million active carry permits in Florida, for the first time ever. That means there are also millions of inactive ones, estimated at 3 million, "some just let them expire", maybe they don't carry much or just don't renew. You don't need a permit to have a gun in this state, just to carry, nor for your home or vechicle or business, "if you own it, or have permission, "just a drivers license.
But the fellows who call the shots, Like "homstead act", which makes your home impossible to take away from you, "even if you are bankrupt", and other things, that they have tried to be take, will never be given up.
It's kind of an unwritten code, my good old boy attorney explained this to me one day, "he was a state Prosecutor", I don't know what law they will try to pass, but it will fall on deaf ears in many places.
I would guesstimate that 8 out of 10 homes have a gun in them, "50 % of vechicles. It's a way of life in many states, and we aren't about to give up our way of life, for a bunch of jackasses.
Jeb Bush signed the "Castle Doctrine" and extended it's range, the final days in office as Gov. before leaving, which set a president. I don't see it changing other than on new stuff.

 

[-v-]

There are a lot more people (anti-gunners) squawking about ALL gun rights lately.... If our 2nd amendment rights are being left to defend by Wayne's PR speeches and a bunch of foot stomping, "madder than hell" gun nuts (as we're all viewed by the antis), then I really believe that we will lose some rights. Sadly, perception is reality to the masses and I don't believe that the pro-gun rights crowd has much leverage in the media wars where the bulk of this gets played out.

Pro-gunners will ALWAYS be viewed as "madder then hell" gun nuts by the Anti's. Always. I've never met one anti who didn't automatically take the high and mighty attitude that because they are against guns they are somehow more refined and culturally tolerant person. Being so tolerant and cultured naturally gives them the right to look down their nose at anyone who disagrees.

As for loosing the media battle? Perhaps, but the 2A crowd has been wining the Capitol Hill battle for the last 10 years. That's the one that matters, and that's the one that gets won with you writing your congress-critters and telling them a firm either no new firearms regulations or no re-election.

 

[hso]

There won't be any changes to the Constitution/BOR because it requires approval by 3/4 of the states. That's not going to happen.

The individual states have the authority to decide how the 2A is regulated, but not the right to deny it to the citizens of the state outright. DC and Chicago had their restrictions deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because they went too far.

 

[JERRY]

states have a right to govern themselves on certain things. i dont like it when it comes to the 2nd amendment but so far its the law.