2nd Amendment ok, what about 28th?

[simonov jr]

Could we reframe the debate by having a pro-gun rep in Congress propose a 28th Amendment, recognizing the right to self defense of one's life and the lives of loved ones? All 50 states permit justifiable homicide, anti's never take this issue on. Why not make em go on record on self-defense? If they say you can't defend your loved ones, your CHILDREN!, they are screwed. If they say you can, and 28th Amendment passes, how can they explain depriving you of the most effective tool for securing that right? Petition anyone?

 

[C.R.Sam]

I am afraid the legal/politico pukes would obfuscate the intent to the point where it would only serve to derrogate the Constitution. Been done before with some of the later ammendments.



------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."

 

[ChrisMkIV]

Simonov, There's already a bill in the house that adresses this very issue, it's HR-347 CITIZENS' SELF-DEFENSE ACT OF 1999

I have a petition for it's support on petition.com at:
WWW.PETITIONONLINE.COM/PROTECT/PETITION.HTML

you might have to look it up in the directory there.

Check it out and tell me if its what you had in mind.

------------------
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property...Horrid mischief would ensue were the law abiding deprived the use of them" --Thomas Paine, 1775

www.2ndamdlvr.org
www.2ndamdlvr.homestead.com/secondamendment.html

[This message has been edited by ChrisMkIV (edited August 17, 2000).]

 

[Bob Locke]

Don't take this the wrong way, because I am going to criticize your idea and not you.

We don't need a 28th amendment, nor do we need a "Citizen's Self-Defense Act". What we need is for the legislators, executors, and judges to start acting like the Constitution means just what it says: that the people have the right to keep and bear arms, and that said right shall not be infringed.

In my opinion, when we start talking about additional amendments and other Acts, it is tantamount to us admitting that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it clearly means, and that some clarification is in order.

Hope you see where I am coming from.

 

[Futo Inu]

A very good good argument can be made that this right already exists as a portion of the second amendment, by use of the phrase "and bear [arms]". It seems logical to me that there are certain circumstances where we are justified in "bearing" arms against another, and this word includes more than just holding arms - it means using or firing the arm as well. And therefore, not only can the federal or state governments not deprive us of the right to keep, or own, firearms; likewise, we cannot be deprived of the right to BEAR (carry them on our person, in our homes, and USE them when justifiable under the common law of time immemorial) them, and that if a state were to eliminate or severely restrict the law of deadly force when presented with deadly force, this would violate that portion of the amendment. So I'd say what we need is recognition of the already existing amendment, and for the courts to quit shirking their duties, and define all of its nuances. Remember, folks, the body of law with respect to the exact meaning of the 1st am, 4th am, 5th, and 6th, is quite extensive (e.g. freedom of speech has all these subcomponents regarding expression, etc.), yet the courts have all but ignored the second amendment. The founders added "and bear" for a reason, so we need to ascertain the limits of the right to bear, but first things first - let's:
1. Recognize the individual right to KEEP (Emerson should do this with any luck - this will throw out Lautenberg, recognize the right as fundamental, recognize the general limitation as to WHICH individuals is only to non-felons, and most importantly, as a consequence of the right being fundamental, adopt the doctrine of strict scrutiny for laws which affect the second)
2. Recognize the 2nd as a restriction on the state's ability to infringe as well (that will be the next really important case)
3. Have the courts explain the EXTENT of the right to KEEP and BEAR - i.e. which weapons (if the courts are right, it will of course include all small arms period), what "gun control", if any at all, is constitutional (for example, with respect to bearing, is it constitutional to have a law that prohibits guns in a courthouse, let's say?)

[This message has been edited by Futo Inu (edited August 17, 2000).]