6
« on: November 09, 2018, 08:29:55 AM »
I've been giving this some thought since the concert shooting in LV, and I think I might have a framework for a solution. It will necessarily infringe on the current almost unlimited liberty we have, but so far I don't see a way to prevent that. The reason I've taken this up is to move the US away from the murder capital of the first world(many third world countries have far more gun deaths), and see if we can provide the security that the framers intended when making the bill of rights.
First off, the reasoning for the 2nd A must be examined. I've always considered that the amendment stands at a guarantee of all the other amendments, and also as the final brake and regulation on an out of control federal govt. In the last, worst case the people rising up with arms would suppress a truly mad dictator or despot should one ever seize control of the fedguv and start making massive changes like suspending rights, and locking up legislators/judges. My goal is to protect the republic, and the people while still regulating gun ownership to some extent.
There are and always will be those who do not want, and will not accept any limitations on gun ownership and operation. I have been one of those for a long time, but I'm gradually changing my thinking. The 2nd A is not without limits. Right now, ownership of automatic weapons is generally considered unlawful, although that regulation hasn't really been tested. However, 'arms' has never been accepted to mean rockets, mines, artillery, missiles(explosive), chem weapons, nuclear devices, and various other war-making materiel. So, practically speaking, there are already limits to the 2nd A for the benefit of the govt, and the limitations of the people.
The wording of the amendment does allow us a bit of leeway to work with. I'm talking about the 'militia' clause. "A well-regulated militia..." gives us an opportunity to mess around with definitions, and also to frame the law in a way that would not gut the original use and meaning too much.
Here's my start, fully willing to hear complaints, and rants, and screaming fits. Some might even use this opportunity to offer edits, and modifications either way, rather than base critique.
"The second amendment to the US Constitution is hereby modified as such:
* A well regulated militia will be founded in each state of the republic.
* The militia of each state shall be maintained by the governors of the various states.
* All responsible citizens are eligible to become militia, without any limitation but that they be over 16, and of good standing.
* All citizens of the various states shall be authorized to keep and bear arms unless found unfit under due process of high crimes or felonies.
* Each state shall respect the rights of citizens of the various states, and no person shall be denied keep and bear arms when in another state.
* ANY business, location, school, house of worship, or other place or building which prohibits the free exercise of the right to keep and bear arms shall take full responsibility, control, and regulation that the security of those in such prohibited locations are fully, and completely protected from harm by those with arms. "
Here's how I see it play out. First, the power to keep and bear arms is moved out of the fedguv and into state jurisdiction. I have always been a proponent of distributing the power away from the fedguv and into the states. What works in NY doesn't work in WY. Next, the governors of the state will have input on just how forcefully they want to try to control the gun regulations. Some states will work with the rest of the judiciary to limit via due process, and some will not. Everyone by default can be a member of a militia, and therefore eligible to keep and bear arms, unless or until they are found unfit. This is the way it is now, but the state gov will be responsible for maintaining the right. Reciprocity means if a citizen of FL travels with their weapon to NJ, they cannot be denied the right just because they left their own home state. Finally, I'm tired of places putting up "No Firearms" and then exposing the people to harm without responsibility. If a nightclub, or church, or library is going to deny the 2nd A right by individuals, then that facility must be responsible for the peoples security. This includes hotels, bars, offices, etc. If my place of business says no firearms, then it's up to the management of the facility to see that NO ONE has firearms. Which means searching, and denial of entry and also secure perimeters to prevent a weapon being smuggled in.
Nothing is foolproof. Nothing is complete. Nothing is absolute. This is what I have so far.