Skip to comments.MT:Columbia Falls lawmaker proposes constitutional amendments on gun rights
Posted on 01/04/2013 7:44:36 AM PST by marktwain
COLUMBIA FALLS A state lawmaker in the Flathead Valley is proposing amendments to the U.S. Constitution to offset the effects of new firearms restrictions, which if passed, he says will erode civil liberties and infringe on states rights.
Rep. Jerry ONeil, R-Columbia Falls, says he will work with the Montana Legislature in an effort to adopt two new constitutional amendments to the U.S. Constitution to protect firearm ownership and national sovereignty. He said the issue is pressing due to the call for gun restrictions in the wake of last months school shootings in Newtown, Conn.
He is most concerned about a proposal by U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., that would require Americans to register their guns, and would ban the sale, transfer, importation or manufacturing of military-style weapons.
Historically, the registration of firearms is the first step toward taking them away, ONeil said. I believe it is a precursor to major overhauls to the Second Amendment.
In the Flathead Valley, gun manufacturers are thriving as small businesses, and he worries that proposed changes to the Commerce Clause will infringe on the states rights.
In Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, ONeil is proposing that the word among be replaced with between, so as to read: Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and interstate commerce between the several states, and with the Indian tribes.
I believe that is the way our founding fathers intended it to be, he said. This would put some sideboards on the interstate commerce clause so there is a limit to it.
(Excerpt) Read more at missoulian.com ...
Mr. O’Neil could use some support in the comments at the link. He is only getting about 50% positive comments now.
If you open the Constitution to amendment, in this current political environment, this band of thieves will use the opportunity to gut the Constitution.
Once that door is open, you will not be happy with the result!
A constitutional amendment is not needed for gun rights, the 2nd amendment is clear and sufficient. Suggesting an amendment only dignifies the gun grabbers false argument that the 2nd amendment does not sufficiently guarantee the right to bear arms. And since the gun grabbers ignore the clear language of the 2nd amendment already, they’ll just ignore any new amendments.
The Constitution is always open to amendment. Once an amendment is proposed, it cannot be changed.
You are thinking of a Constitutional Convention, which would open us up to all sorts of nasty possibilities. We definitely do not want that.
The Constitution is open to AMENDMENT at any time. I think you are confusing the regular amendment process with a new Constitution CONVENTION, which could potentially have the effect you mention.
I do not support Rep. O’Neil's efforts even though they may be well intentioned. Having a government Rep. introduce ammendments to enforce one of THE ammendments, could be misconstrued by the ignorant not as enforcement, but as the government “granting” a right.
If the idiot politicians (quoting your namesake, I repeat myself) can’t understand “shall not be infringed”, what more can we do? Add “really, really” in front of it?
Yes we do want exactly that! Why do you think the founders added this provision to the Constitution in the first place? They did it for this EXACT situation where the federal government refuses to control itself. You will NEVER get a bunch of Washington elitist politicians to propose a constitutional amendment that would greatly limit their own power. An article five convention simply allows the states to propose amendments that would then need to be ratified by the states just like any other amendment.
You know the reason we don't have a balanced budget amendment? Because it's NEVER been allowed to be voted on by the states. It's blocked in the congress by the same people that are spending this country into oblivion.
Do not fear the left when amending the Constitution. The LEFT knows it does not have the numbers to win on a level playing field. A Constitutional convention does exactly that.
Missoula is very left wing.
This state Rep knows EXACTLY what he is talking about. Many of our national gun laws such as GCA, NFA and many others get their teeth based on the power of the federal government to regulate commerce "among" the states.
It is clear to this Rep and most any honest interpretation that the founders NEVER intended for the commerse clause to be a virtually unlimited power. It is total abuse of both the interpretation and application of this power that has allowed the government to expand way beyond the original intent.
My own take is that we need to change the wording to completely eliminate the clause as it pertains to states.
Appropriate use of this power since the adoption of the constitution is virtually non existent. What it has been used for is to greatly expand the size and scope of government way beyond the boundries of the constitution.
This is it EXACTLY !
Remove the commerce claws from the feds.
The commerce clause - of course!
While I do not consider myself uninformed, I am an embarrassing example of how some ignorant folks could misinterpret this sort of thing.
Thanks for the clarification. I'll post again when I fully understand the situation.
Why does he think introducing a grammar error is going to fix anything?