Posted on 02/18/2016 4:30:47 PM PST by Elderberry
Last week, author James Boice interviewed me for a Salon essay about what would happen if the Second Amendment is repealed. With Justice Scalia gone, the vitality of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms is in doubt. Here are a handful of quotes from the article.
Besides, "if the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow, very little would actually change right away. Chicago and D.C. might try to reinstitute their handgun ban, but virtually every state constitution carries a provision upholding the right to keep guns," says Josh Blackman, a constitutional law expert at the South Texas College of Law.
Repealists respond that they understand that, but right away is not what they have in mind. Repeal would allow Americans over the ensuing decades, or even century, to write the laws we want with regard to firearms. If we want to regulate them like we do cars, we would be able to.
But we have never repealed one of the Bill of Rights. Could we even do that? Shouldn't those be left alone?
Blackman says there is nothing sacrosanct about them--like any other amendment they are subject to Article V of the Constitution. If we want to repeal one, if the criteria is met, then repeal it we will. But he warns of a slippery slope:
"Once you repeal one Amendment, society normalizes the process of repealing another," he says. "It casts our constitutional liberties as transitory."
...
In fact, I could find no data or example in which repeal of one amendment led to a feeding frenzy upon others, and professor Blackman declined to provide me one. The argument of a slippery slope is an ideological one and not based in fact.
...
Blackman says that repealists would be better off attacking the problem through legislation. Wait for a future Supreme Court that thinks more like John Paul Stevensthan Scalia to overturn Heller. But after decades of seeing the NRA exploiting the indecipherability of the Second Amendment to thwart or neuter every potentially meaningful gun control measure, repealists are all out of faith that legislation can coexist with the provision as is.
Blackman brings up another potential problem: A repeal effort could backfire. Red states would retaliate by proposing an amendment strengthening the right to bear arms--for example, upholding the right of constitutional carry--which in our red meat climate could very well see more support than repeal would.
...
Though Josh Blackman sees repeal as a nonstarter today, he says the future of the effort relies on future Supreme Court decisions. "If the Court one day holds the right to bear arms includes outside the home, that would overturn significant precedent and make repeal much more valuable."
It’s unalienable. Inalienable rights can be bargained away by the possessor, Unalienable rights, the ones your born with from God, are immutable, it’s not possible to transfer them.
That may seem like picking nits, but on the legal field there is a huge difference. Government frequently tries to blur legal distinctions so as to convince the citizenry that they’ve acquiesced to schemes that infringe or subvert their unalienable rights.
Read “Term Limits” or “Unintended Consequences” for the answer.
I thought inalienable were rights of aliens.
Is our creator the source of rights in the declaration only or do you lump in the bill of rights also?
Well I know what I’d do.
Get my order in on a new Adcor BEAR Elite 16”.
Reliable
Accurate
Easy to maintain
Just like the long rifle of the Revolutionary War, the various AR-15 type rifles would be the symbol of liberty.
I’d also get ammo carrying packs for my dog and she would ....supply the revolution.
Then grab a bunch of Indian coders and make a kickin phone game/app called “The Red and the Blue” which would simulate the New American Civil War making millions to reinvest in militia training and building up ...you guessed it...the New Continental Army.
The possibilities are endless.
Gimme that Crusade and let’s rock.
:-)
Exactly correct! And it need not happen all at once (that would cause considerable blow-back). It could happen in stages: prohibit handguns, then semi-auto rifles, etc.
That is not so far-fetched. We saw exactly the same process with the 10A. Even after the Civil War, states were darn near sovereign entities. Now DC can tell some school in, say, Idaho, what they must serve for lunch.
They are beginning to realize Article V may be a forgone conclusion. I predicted this. Article V supporters will NOT get the results they think they will.
if they repeal the 2nd amendment I’d finally have the best use in the history of this republic for my ammunition.
And I’m telling you the court can suck my ass....so can you.
You were in the military?
You say you own firearms, might I suggest you learn what they are really for or are you going to let the “law of the land” tyrants to take them away from you?
ooops, meant to take the “and so can you part out....silly me, I forgot.
They can tell schools in Idaho what to serve for lunch only as long as the schools in Idaho accept Federal money for the school lunch program. In other words, accept the king’s shilling, expect to do the king’s bidding. They do not have to participate in the Federal program. The voters of Idaho can reject the federal money and feed their children what ever they feel is appropriate, all they have to do is be willing to pay for it.
Right you are. But that was just one example of federal overreach. They take your money, then offer to give some of it back to you if you jump through their hoops.
There are hundreds of other examples that are not money-related. For example, you want to modify that marshy pond on your property? 100 years ago, you just went ahead and did it. Now, you risked huge fines from the EPA, even if your state gave you permission.
My point: it took awhile, but the 10A is dead. The 2A could follow that same path.
The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right, the words can be removed from the constitution, but it is not the constitution that “gives” rights, nor can the government take them away.
I’m not “lumping in” anything, just describing it from the legal definitions. The BOR points out what the government can’t do, otherwise that would be an infringement.
The government might not be able to remove ones unalienable rights, but they definitely could keep one from exercising them by sticking you in a hole or blowing ones brains out. In that frame of reference the people are at least able to deter or resist the inherent tendency of government towards tyranny (if they’re vigilant).
Why should I suck your ass, it stinks. If you want your guns pried from your cold dead hands, go ahead.
that is your right. I suspect the U.S. Marshals service, and the FBI,know how to use fire arms. A quick change in the law and I suppose they could use United states Army to take fire arms, should they be proscribed.But regardless of what you wish, the government has the power to do that, if they feel it in necessary. Stand up for your rights by all means, but be prepared for the consequences.
What is the source of the rights in the constitution? My reading is “We the people of these United States” is the source. That means we the people can amend the constitution and limit or remove a right. This would be different than in the declaration in which Jefferson cited the creator as the source of the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I welcome correction.
Unalienable. I’m good with that.
CC
You sound like a coward, go ahead and live on your knees. I’ll die a free man.
You can just wipe your chin every night after you have pleased your masters...enjoy.
Thanks. You saved me a lot of typing on my iPad. Yes, you cannot repeal a right.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.