Skip to main content

The current version says:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I propose scrapping that out-of-date text in favor of:
No state, or the United States, shall deprive the right of citizens to keep and bear arms designed for hunting, or for self-defense of one's person or domicile, without due process of law.
This balances the right of people to defend themselves with the right of others to maintain personal safety. It also explicitly limits that right to one's person or home, meaning that you can't pull a George Zimmerman, and you can't shoot someone just because they're trying to take your car, but you CAN if you're in the car and you have legitimate reason to fear for your life. It also gives a clearer picture as to what kinds of weapons are allowed: shotguns and hunting rifles are probably fine, but assault rifles are not. Handguns can also be restricted, because although they can be used for self-defense, a long gun would get the job done just as well.

The word that I debated the use of the most of was "designed." Should it be "used," i.e., "used for hunting," etc., instead? Or what about "intended"?

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Yes, I understand where you're coming from, but (5+ / 0-)

    you do nothing to prevent laws that are less restrictive than the standard you are trying to set. In fact, by throwing things into the realm of "Due Process" you quite arguably are opening back up some issues that are now considered to be well setteled.

    Personally, I'd prefer to see a Constitution with no language on the subject of firearms, and have everything hmmered out in the political arena. Then I think that we'd finally get some regulations with real teeth.

    There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

    by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 04:48:34 PM PDT

    •  Yep I Look Around the World and Can See No Reason (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      there needs to be an individual Constitutional firearm right in order for millions of people to own arms that have reasons for doing so.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 05:01:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  True. I just think that a general clarification of (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        what kind of firearms are acceptable and what kinds aren't would take away from some of the gray area.

        •  "No state, or the United States, shall deprive" (0+ / 0-)

          tends to set limits on regulation, without really creating standards. Of course judges could differ on that but our current SCOTUS doesn'take me optimistic.

          There can be no protection locally if we're content to ignore the fact that there are no controls globally.

          by oldpotsmuggler on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 05:17:34 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Existing legislation... (0+ / 0-)

          Such as the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968 already place significant restrictions on types of firearms (i.e. fully-automatic firearms, sawed-off shotguns, silencers, etc.) determined as inherently dangerous.

          I've long advocated expanding the classification of Title II to include semi-automatic firearms and possibly detachable-magazine-capable weapons as well.

          From Wikipedia:

          Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968 is a revision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, and pertains to machine guns, short or "sawed-off" shotguns and rifles, and so-called "destructive devices" (including grenades, mortars, rocket launchers, large projectiles, and other heavy ordnance). Acquisition of these weapons is subject to prior approval of the Attorney General, and federal registration is required for possession. Generally, a $200 tax is imposed upon each transfer or making of any Title II weapon.

          "Federal law limits me to 3 shells when duck hunting, but no law limiting assault magazines. We have more protections for ducks than people." - Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5)

          by radabush on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 05:47:13 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  people know what tacks to take (0+ / 0-)

    It's the whore coward Congress loath to wake.

    Monsanto is poison, they gotta be stopped.

    by renzo capetti on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 05:04:44 PM PDT

  •  I'd suggest a repeal, rather than a "redo" (0+ / 0-)


    Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

    Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of arms, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

    Section 3. 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, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

    Note that this would still allow Congress and state legislatures to set firearm usage and gun-safety legislation as deemed appropriate.

    "Federal law limits me to 3 shells when duck hunting, but no law limiting assault magazines. We have more protections for ducks than people." - Rep. Mike Thompson (CA-5)

    by radabush on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 05:19:12 PM PDT

  •  I like to use dynamite for hunting. (0+ / 0-)

    Drop one down a gopher hole, and -- KA-BOOM!  No more gopher.  Damn sweet for fishing, too.

    Of course, it would be a matter of no time at all before AR-15s were re-engineered for "hunting" as AS-15s, perhaps the same gun but with a little hook on the stock for you to carry your possum carcasses on.  

    Here's my alternative solution to the second amendment problem.  Leave it alone... but require a full ten hour psych evaluation for everybody that wants to own a gun that can kill large numbers of people faster than a shotgun (the ideal gun for home defense, by the way).  How many of the nuts who think Obama is the harbinger of the Apocalypse will submit willingly to that?  And of them, how many will pass the eval?  How glibly will they be able to explain that if the second amendment is for stopping tyranny, just who the hell they want to shoot with their gun.

  •  It's never gonna happen (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You need 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states to pass a Constitutional Amendment (I think that's right -- it could be  3/4 of the Congress and 2/3 of the states). That's utterly impossible now. And probably impossible in the next 25 years.

    That's the same reaction I have when people say, "Hey, let's get rid of the antiquated electoral college." Never gonna happen (although the idea that states would give their state's EV's to the national winner of the popular vote is an intriguing work-around).

    I think our only chance for gun control is to focus on the "well-regulated militia" clause. The word "regulated" is right fucking there. We need a Supreme Court that will recognize the intent behind that clause. So we need to elect Democrats to the Presidency. And they'll appoint SCOTUS judges.

    "Stupid just can't keep its mouth shut." -- SweetAuntFanny's grandmother.

    by Dbug on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 06:58:13 PM PDT

  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

    I'll take it.  Full auto hunting, here we go!

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 08:05:43 PM PDT

  •  Wordsmithing (0+ / 0-)

    "Designed for", "used for" -- how about "suitable"? It's a word that appears in the 1689 Bill of Rights and may have some legal analysis lying around in the books to define it.

    Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

    by Dogs are fuzzy on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:17:02 PM PDT

  •  Those who advocate scrapping the 2nd won't (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    get traction. Arguing that we change the 2nd won't get any more political traction than repealing it as some have argued.
    Maybe this is an Overton argument, fine, whatever...

    We've not even passed background checks yet, let alone any other major change in gun law.

    Realistic change in policy is where we need to focus and right now, we've not even been able to pass even minimal policy change since the Newtown massacre.

    -6.38, -6.21: Lamented and assured to the lights and towns below, Faster than the speed of sound, Faster than we thought we'd go, Beneath the sound of hope...

    by Vayle on Fri Mar 22, 2013 at 09:22:19 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site