Gun Rights- Fighting And Winning

The BOR which makes up only the first ten amendments is not supposed to be amended or repealed and that's what sets it apart from the rest of the Constitution. Since the BOR is only the first ten amendments, the amendment on Prohibition was obviously not part of the BOR as it was the 18th amendment. So yes the Constitution can be amended, except for the BOR.

This is simply made up. The Bill of Rights didn't even exist until four years after the Constitution was ratified, and the impetus then was that this newfangled idea of federalism may have created a tyrannical monster seated in New York or Philadelphia that was out of touch with the very states that gave it life, especially those in the rural south. (Sound familiar?)

Just because the first 10 amendments (originally proposed as 12) were ratified as a block in no way suggests that they're indelible. The first seven articles were ratified as a block as well; so what?

In fact, for years Republicans pushed the "Flag Desecration Act," which was drafted specifically to relax the First Amendment and expand the power of government. It never passed Congress, but there's no legal reason it could not have.
 
At the time of the founding of the nation, there was quite a discussion over how much or how little power the federal government should wield. Most of you have probably heard of (and some of you may have read) The Federalist Papers. These were a series of articles written by three prominent statesmen of the time (using pseudonyms) in favor of a strong federal government. There was also a corresponding series of articles, written by other prominent citizens, known as The Anti-Federalist Papers.

In the end, the federalists won, but the Constitution was approved subject to the proviso that it would be amended ASAP to stipulate limits on the power and authority of the central, federal government. And that's what resulted in the Bill of Rights. As Brownston322 noted, there were twelve amendments proposed in the original Bill of Rights. However, only ten of those twelve were ultimately ratified by the states.

It may have been the hope and intention of the Founders that the Bill of Rights would never be amended or repealed, but they didn't write that into the Constitution.
 
Our Constitution provides two ways it can be changed. The Amendment process, or a new Constitutional Convention.

The Amendment process is spelled out, and ANY part of the Constitution could be changed via an Amendment, IF that amendment was passed and ratified under the existing process. Even the first 10 amendments COULD be changed by later amendments IF the approved process is met.

The history of Prohibition and its repeal teaches us that the system does work, and even a horribly bad idea that becomes law can be repealed.

There have been a few people who have called for a new Constitutional Convention, in order to avoid the cumbersome Amendment process and "fix" what they see as wrong via a new convention, resulting in a new Constitution.

The Constitution does provide for a new convention, BUT, if it happens, then EVERY part of the Constitution is up for grabs. EVERY PART.

AND, the sitting Congress gets to decide the representation at the convention.

Think about that, for a bit.
 
The Constitution does provide for a new convention, BUT, if it happens, then EVERY part of the Constitution is up for grabs. EVERY PART.

False and misinformed. A Convention of States IAW Article V of the US Constitution is very specific in its instructions.

A convention is limited in scope to the issues the State's have passed requesting the convention for the purposes of constructing the language of the proposed amendment.

The amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

You are confusing the ONE Constitutional Convention which drafted our Constitution ratified by the States with the necessary State adopting it on 12 June 1788 with the thirteen plus Convention of States we have had in our history.

AFAIK, there is no legal way to replace the entire Constitution of the United States.
 
Last edited:
False and misinformed. A Convention of States IAW Article V of the US Constitution is very specific in its instructions.

A convention is limited in scope to the issues the State's have passed requesting the convention for the purposes of constructing the language of the proposed amendment.

The amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the States.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution

You are confusing the ONE Constitutional Convention which drafted our Constitution ratified by the States with the necessary State adopting it on 12 June 1788 with the thirteen plus Convention of States we have had in our history.

AFAIK, there is no legal way to replace the entire Constitution of the United States.

This is also correct. What you're describing is what I call the "alternate amendment process." It makes more procedural sense to run an amendment through 2/3 of both houses then on to the state legislatures, so that's the only method we've ever tried.
 
This is a great conversation.

[sarcasm on]Yes, yes it is. Why it’s hard to believe that us fringe right gun enthusiasts, who demand that every 5 year old should have a gun, seems to have such nuanced understanding of the American legal system. It’s almost as if many gun owners aren’t the bubba hillbilly rednecks or mall ninjas whose only argument is “shall not be infringed” that we are portrayed as and really are. Why, next thing you know we will talk crazy stuff like it’s a freedom of speech to burn a flag or kneel during the national anthem, because we all know that the only constitutional amendment that really matters is the second. Heaven forbid we have rational conversations about public policy and the rule of law.[sarcasm off]

PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.
 
[sarcasm on]Yes, yes it is. Why it’s hard to believe that us fringe right gun enthusiasts, who demand that every 5 year old should have a gun, seems to have such nuanced understanding of the American legal system. It’s almost as if many gun owners aren’t the bubba hillbilly rednecks or mall ninjas whose only argument is “shall not be infringed” that we are portrayed as and really are. Why, next thing you know we will talk crazy stuff like it’s a freedom of speech to burn a flag or kneel during the national anthem, because we all know that the only constitutional amendment that really matters is the second. Heaven forbid we have rational conversations about public policy and the rule of law.[sarcasm off]



PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.



No insult taken. I didn’t mean my comment as sarcasm. I really meant this was a great conversation. Lots of good back and forth on different perspectives of the intent of the BOR and whether it’s changeable or not. I like a good debate especially between like minded people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
[sarcasm on]Yes, yes it is. Why it’s hard to believe that us fringe right gun enthusiasts, who demand that every 5 year old should have a gun, seems to have such nuanced understanding of the American legal system. It’s almost as if many gun owners aren’t the bubba hillbilly rednecks or mall ninjas whose only argument is “shall not be infringed” that we are portrayed as and really are. Why, next thing you know we will talk crazy stuff like it’s a freedom of speech to burn a flag or kneel during the national anthem, because we all know that the only constitutional amendment that really matters is the second. Heaven forbid we have rational conversations about public policy and the rule of law.[sarcasm off]



PTac not trying to insult you bud. It’s just that some people here like their Glock pistol, but denounce the NRA as extremist (the very organization that they can thank for that pistol not being covered under the NFA, btw), along with refusing to believe that many hard core 2A advocates are quite moderate on other political issues and don’t simply vote R blindly. And yes, sometimes I want to be sarcastic.



5whiskey, I appreciate your humor, and I likewise resent the stereotype that all gun owners (and advocates of gun rights) are pickup-truck-drivin', Bible-thumpin', right-wing-votin' rednecks. No offense to rednecks (I love 'Skynyrd, after all), but it ain't necessarily so -- I mean, I have a master's degree, I don't subscribe to religion, and I drive German cars. I also happen to have a house full o' cool guns.

But here's the problem. Those stereotypes hold true more than they should, especially the part about only believing the Second Amendment applies. I've worked in some conservative environments (a shipyard and a nuclear-power plant), and these kinda values were the norm:

• The Bible and Christianity should be taught as fact in public schools.
• School children should be forced to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance and salute the flag.
• This is a Christian nation.
• Anti-war protesters should be arrested.
• Those who disrespect or desecrate the national flag (without regard to whose property the flag is) should be imprisoned.
• Pornography should be banned.
• The news media should be subject to prior restraint.
• Gun rights are absolute.
• Anyone who doesn't consent to a search by police "has something to hide."
• If you don't know or understand your legal rights, that's your damn problem.
• Protections against unwarranted searches and self-incrimination "only protect criminals."
• Those convicted of capital crimes should be summarily executed, as due process wastes time and money.

I am not exaggerating. These people are among us; go to the right place, and they're actually in the majority. (And I hang out with my share of left-wingers these days, people who think, for instance, that disclosure of one's tax returns is a matter of politics rather than privacy; this rant can easily go both ways.)

Call me crazy, but I embrace the entire Bill of Rights, plus the 14th Amendment, plus those rights sprinkled throughout the body of the Constitution (such as protections against bills of attainders or ex post facto legislation, the requirement of writs of habeas corpus, and the general theme of personal privacy). That said, people who claim to "uphold the Constitution" while casually cherry-picking its content are a very real segment of our population.
 
Last edited:
Where does it say, in the Constitution, in any of the amendments to the Constitution, or in any other federal law that the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) cannot be amended -- or even repealed?

The Constitution might not say that up front but if you know the purpose of the BOR than it would fall into place. The purpose of the BOR was not and is not to grant rights, rather its to draw a line that the government cannot cross because if it were to do so it would be infringing on rights that were granted not by the government but by a higher power. As I said in an earlier post it would be more accurate to call it the Bill Of Restrictions, since that's what it does, it places restrictions on the government. Since to amend or repeal any of the amendments in the BOR would obviously be an act of government, to do so the government would be crossing the line and going against the Constitution.
 
This is also correct. What you're describing is what I call the "alternate amendment process." It makes more procedural sense to run an amendment through 2/3 of both houses then on to the state legislatures, so that's the only method we've ever tried.

You are correct in that is the "other" and most misunderstood method of amending the Constitution as well as proposing legislation to Congress on behalf of the people.

The 21st Amendment was enacted with this process repealing prohibition.

There has been over 40 conventions in the history of the United States most of them successful at achieving their goals.

What often seems to happen is that Congress wakes up when a Convention is called for and addresses the situation before the Convention has to complete its process.

The history of interstate conventions is not only long and rich, but a
source of useful precedent. The standard protocols have worked even in situations of
extreme political stress, as proved by the 1861 Washington Conference Convention.

Among the more than 40 conventions of states already held, only two were constitutional conventions: Philadelphia in 1787 and Montgomery in 1861. Several other assemblies have proposed constitutional amendments, but none of those was ever called a constitutional convention.

The Sherman Anti-Trust laws for example were a response to the 1889 St Louis Convention.

http://articlevinfocenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Natelson-History-of-Conventions-final.pdf
 
Last edited:
You are correct in that is the "other" and most misunderstood method of amending the Constitution as well as proposing legislation to Congress on behalf of the people.

The 21st Amendment was enacted with this process repealing prohibition.

Just to be clear, we're (mostly) talking about two different things, both of which are described in Article V:

1. A national convention for proposing amendments and sending them to the states for consideration.

2. State conventions (versus state legislatures) for ratifying amendments approved by Congress or by national convention.

No amendment has been passed on to the states by way of a national convention; all were instead first approved by 2/3 of both houses of Congress. It's more efficient to introduce an amendment in Congress first, simply because Congress meets and does business regularly, whereas a national convention would require all participating states to convene ad hoc and at the same time.

You're right, though, that the 21st was submitted to state-level conventions rather than legislatures, but it still took them the better part of a year to get all those meetings convened and get the amendment approved.
 
Last edited:
still took them the better part of a year to get all those meetings convened and get the amendment approved.

Which is about the same as it takes to adopt in any other route if not slightly faster. Unless you want to talk about the 27th which took 202 years.....

No amendment has been passed on to the states by way of a national convention;

Correct.

Congress has always acted once the Convention was in place and before it could be completed.

Sort of "Oh Crap...we better do our job approach."
 
Last edited:
Which is about the same as it takes to adopt in any other route if not slightly faster. Unless you want to talk about the 27th which took 202 years.....

I'm no expert on the 21st, and I'm not sure why they went the route of state conventions versus legislatures. As you point out, it didn't appear to save any significant time.

(Ima do some reading.)
 
I'm no expert on the 21st, and I'm not sure why they went the route of state conventions versus legislatures. As you point out, it didn't appear to save any significant time.

Congress felt that too many state legislatures where beholden to "special interest" in this case Pro-Prohibition lobbyist.

The 18th Amendment was only passed after decades of lobbying by the temperance movement. In other words a small very vocal group had been allowed to hijack the will of the people.

A Convention of States can either be called for by a 3/4 of the State Legislatures passing a request for a convention which then Congress must honor within a specified timeline (90 days or 180 days...not sure which) or Congress can unilaterally call for and set a date for a Convention of States.

Either way, Congress calls for the Convention.
 
That makes perfect sense — they were specificallybypassing the very legislatures that supported the 18th to begin with. I didn’t think of it that way, but repeal of a relatively recent amendment might naturally follow a different route from the original amendment.

And yeah, the requirement for state conventions is right there in the text of the 21st: "This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution."

Shrewd political maneuvering.
 
Last edited:
PhotonGuy said:
Where does it say, in the Constitution, in any of the amendments to the Constitution, or in any other federal law that the first ten amendments (the Bill of Rights) cannot be amended -- or even repealed?
The Constitution might not say that up front but if you know the purpose of the BOR than it would fall into place. The purpose of the BOR was not and is not to grant rights, rather its to draw a line that the government cannot cross because if it were to do so it would be infringing on rights that were granted not by the government but by a higher power.
But I know the purpose of the BOR, and I don't dispute that the rights discussed in the BOR are not granted by it, but rather are recognized as preexisting rights. Nonetheless, the BOR, as a set of amendments to the Constitution, are part of the Constitution. The Constitution is the highest law of the land, and it says what it says. Anything it does NOT say ... it doesn't say. And it doesn't say that the various amendments comprising the BOR can never be amended or repealed. Irrevocability does not "fall into place" without being stated. That's not how laws work.

If I'm wrong, please tell us exactly where in the Constitution it states that the first ten amendments can never be amended or repealed.
 
If I'm wrong, please tell us exactly where in the Constitution it states that the first ten amendments can never be amended or repealed.

The right to bear arms was not granted by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.

The 2nd amendment simply directs that the Federal Government cannot infringe upon human rights including the right to self defense.

You cannot repeal something that was not granted by you in the first place.
 
davidsog said:
The right to bear arms was not granted by the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
I just wrote exactly that in the post immediately above yours -- the post you responded to.

Aguila Blanca said:
... I don't dispute that the rights discussed in the BOR are not granted by it, but rather are recognized as preexisting rights.
Repealing the Second Amendment would not repeal the moral existence of the right, but it would repeal the legal stipulation that the government shall not infringe that right. If the prohibition on governmental infringement is removed, how much does it matter whether or not the underlying right still exists ... somewhere, out there in the ether? Look how much the governments (federal and state) have infringed the RKBA even with the Second Amendment in place. Remove the Second Amendment, and it's Katie bar the door.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top