Replies

There is the thirteenth Amendment that refers to involuntary servitude. I think that covers possession while adjudicated to be totally in the power of the state.

Article XIII (Amendment 13 - Slavery and Involuntary Servitude)

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I don't see how that plays in the matter at hand. The Fourth ("...no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized" (Emphasis added.)) and the Fifth ("...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property..." (Emphasis added)) might.

So how would yo modify the 2Amd and how do you do it without admitting that the Constitution is invalid?

I wouldn't modify as of now. I can't say what I might or might not do if I could come up with better wording, if there is any. And a modification to the Constitution using the proper ammendment process is not an admission that the Constitution is invalid.

Is it a “Living” Document?

I'd say "No".

changeable at a judge’s whim?

It's not supposed to be.

If that one, the one written as an absolute can have modifications and restrictions read into it how about the others that are not absolute?

I'm not certain what is meant by "absolute" here. I'd think nothing is more absolute than the right to life, the Declaration notes it as an unalienable right, yet we execute people and seem to assume we may take the life of someone who is attempting to murder us as, by that attempt, they forfeit the right to life.

like speech- “Congress shall make no law..” That limits what Congress can do but how about the States?

I'd say the States should be limited too. I'd list freedom of speech within the "among these" noted in the Declaration, which also states "to secure these rights Governments are instituted among men".

Amendment 15 states "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Note that the underlined part paralells the words of the Second Amendmet: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms". But few think "The right of citizens of the United States to vote" is unbounded. Most understand that the right to vote doesn't include the right to vote in the election of a State in which one is not a resident or the right to vote for the officers of a club in which one is not a member. It's not stated, people just understand that to be the case.

But many regard "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" as unbounded...except when one of the people is imprisoned, or violently insane, or four years old, or tries to bear arms on the private property of someone else who doesn't want them to.

Possibly, just as we understand the bounds on the right to vote so that they don't need to be stated, people at the time of the writing of the Second Amendmant understood the bounds on it so that they didn't need to be stated, but we today have lost that understanding, even though we acknowledge limits as noted in the previous paragraph.

We need to concentrate more on the meaning of the right to keep and bear arms in order to understand the words "shall not be infringed".