With 2nd Amendment Rights In Question In The Near Future, I Did Some Researcching

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • "ThatGuy"

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 9, 2008
    259
    16
    Terre Haute, Indiana
    I decided to go on wikipedia today (I love wikipedia). I found this

    "Some oaths of office are a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text or to a person or other office-holder (e.g., an oath to support the constitution of the state, or of loyalty to the king). Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office."


    So then I went to the U.S. Senate's web page and found this, their Oath Of Office

    " I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

    "The Constitution contains an oath of office only for the president. For other officials, including members of Congress, that document specifies only that they "shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation to support this constitution." In 1789, the First Congress reworked this requirement into a simple fourteen-word oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States"

    Then I went thur the 2nd Amendment. I found this under the "Civilian Usage Definition"

    "The people's right to have their own arms for their defense is described in the philosophical and political writings of Aristotle, Cicero, John Locke, Machiavelli, the English Whigs, and others.Though possessing arms appears to be distinct from "bearing" them, the possession of arms is recognized as necessary for and a logical precursor to the bearing of arms. Particularly in the event of oppression or slaughter of people by governments or racial majorities, researchers have noted that exercise of the right to bear arms internationally is intrinsically linked to a people's ability to possess them.

    The procedure for amending the Constitution is governed by Article V of the original text
    Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Such amendments may be proposed by the United States Congress or by a national convention assembled at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds of the several states. To become valid, amendments must then be ratified by either the legislatures of or ratifying conventions held in three-fourths of the several states, and may not deny a state equal representation in the Senate without its consent. However, an amendment that removes this entrenchment clause from the amendment process may enable a subsequent amendment to deny a state its equal representation in the Senate without its consent.

    Similarly, in a released Senate report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Senator Orrin G. Hatch, chairman, U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on the Constitution, states:
    They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. "When our ancestors forged a land "conceived in liberty", they did so with musket and rifle. When they reacted to attempts to dissolve their free institutions, and established their identity as a free nation, they did so as a nation of armed freemen. When they sought to record forever a guarantee of their rights, they devoted one full amendment out of ten to nothing but the protection of their right to keep and bear arms against governmental interference. Under my chairmanship the Subcommittee on the Constitution will concern itself with a proper recognition of, and respect for, this right most valued by free men."
    Now this is pretty scary

    "Legislation, passed to implement provisions of the Constitution or to adapt those implementations to changing conditions, also broadens and, in subtle ways, changes the meanings given to the words of the Constitution. Up to a point, the rules and regulations of the many agencies of the federal government have a similar effect. If the actions of Congress or federal agencies are challenged as to their constitutionality, however, it is the court system that ultimately decides whether or not they are allowable under the Constitution."



    So my question, is that if congress was to pass a bill of some sort to suppress our 2nd Amendment rights, wouldn't that be contradictory to the very oath that they took when they took their position and be considered betraying their oath of office? I mean am I the only one who see's this?
     
    Last edited:

    ATM

    will argue for sammiches.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    30   0   0
    Jul 29, 2008
    21,019
    83
    Crawfordsville
    You are not alone. Many see it that way. Rep for putting in the time and thought to present it well.:yesway:
     

    jblomenberg16

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    67   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    9,920
    63
    Southern Indiana
    This is an extremely touchy subject, and one that will always have differences in interpretation, and public opinion.

    The 2nd ammendment will likely never be repealed. However, it is likely that our government and courts will continue to "Interpret" what "bearing arms" really is.

    It doesn't say that our citizens have the right to bear Ruger 10/22's, AK-47's, Remington 870's, Glock 21's, etc. It also doesn't say if the general public can have tanks, artilery, and aircraft for instance. So, that will always be up for interpretation on just want amount of arms are consitutionally guaranteed, much like it has been with previous bans on "assault weapons", explosives, etc.

    The interpretation of what the allowable firearms can be owned by the public will probably continue to change as party power ebs and flows, as public opionion changes, and media attention to certain types of arms changes.

    Unfortunately, it seems like issues like this get way more attention by politicians and media who purely want to show activity, rather than results. If you look at man of the public opinion polls taken this election period, the issues of firearms and 2nd ammendment garners a very low % of votes as to what's most important. In some polls is actually grouped in the "other" issues category.

    Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

    If our elected officials put a lot of emphasis on changing the 2nd ammendment interpretation, aren't they focusing on things that aren't important? That's for each of us to decide. Some may hold that the government shouldn't be messing with the economy, healthcare, an other major issues.

    So, to answer your question, is it unconstitutional? I don't think so, and in fact, many could argue it is in defense of that very oath that they must define what the arms are that can be borne. Lets hope that our elected officials do support their oath and responsibility to "faithfully discharge their duties," which include representing the desires of their constituents.
     

    "ThatGuy"

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 9, 2008
    259
    16
    Terre Haute, Indiana
    the one thing that really chaps my ass, is that every day I go to work and do my duty. Everyday, be it in civilian or military status I perform the same duties. I do my job to defend the Constitution of the United States thru my job in the Air Force. The sad thing is that there are men and women that fight on the front lines and some that sadly give the greatest saccrifice for that very cause. But at what cost. Us men and women of the armed forces give it all and sometimes our lives to defend the Constitution and everything it stans for, but for what. Its almost starting to seem in vain. We defend our freedoms from foreign enemies but for what, so that our OWN goverment can try to suppress the very rights that we fight and sometimes die for? This is rediculous and down right disturbing and absolutely disgusting!
     

    jblomenberg16

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    67   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    9,920
    63
    Southern Indiana
    I don't think any warm blooded citizen of this great country could argue with that at all. If all else fails, know that at least one person out there thanks you, and the rest of our men and women in the armed forces, for standing up for our freedoms and constitution. Thank you for your service! :patriot:


    I can only hope that many others share that sentiment and voice it through thier votes this year, and in future elections.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    This is an extremely touchy subject, and one that will always have differences in interpretation, and public opinion.

    The 2nd ammendment will likely never be repealed. However, it is likely that our government and courts will continue to "Interpret" what "bearing arms" really is.

    It doesn't say that our citizens have the right to bear Ruger 10/22's, AK-47's, Remington 870's, Glock 21's, etc. It also doesn't say if the general public can have tanks, artilery, and aircraft for instance. So, that will always be up for interpretation on just want amount of arms are consitutionally guaranteed, much like it has been with previous bans on "assault weapons", explosives, etc.

    The interpretation of what the allowable firearms can be owned by the public will probably continue to change as party power ebs and flows, as public opionion changes, and media attention to certain types of arms changes.

    Unfortunately, it seems like issues like this get way more attention by politicians and media who purely want to show activity, rather than results. If you look at man of the public opinion polls taken this election period, the issues of firearms and 2nd ammendment garners a very low % of votes as to what's most important. In some polls is actually grouped in the "other" issues category.

    Issues - Election Center 2008 - CNN.com

    If our elected officials put a lot of emphasis on changing the 2nd ammendment interpretation, aren't they focusing on things that aren't important? That's for each of us to decide. Some may hold that the government shouldn't be messing with the economy, healthcare, an other major issues.

    So, to answer your question, is it unconstitutional? I don't think so, and in fact, many could argue it is in defense of that very oath that they must define what the arms are that can be borne. Lets hope that our elected officials do support their oath and responsibility to "faithfully discharge their duties," which include representing the desires of their constituents.

    You are likely correct in that the 2A will never be repealed when it's too easy to simply "redefine" it. You are also correct that the 2A does not define which arms we, the people, may possess. Instead, the Constitution, in the 10A, very specifically defines the role of the fedgov: If a particular power is not Constitutionally defined, the fedgov does not have that power. If that same power is prohibited to the states, they do not have it either, but it instead rests with the people, the individual citizens.

    The 1A speaks very clearly that "Congress shall make no law" restricting free speech, free press, free religion, peaceable assembly, or the right to petition gov't for redress of grievance. It says nothing about the states doing so, nor does it prevent the people from doing so.

    The 2A is much more encompassing, in that when the prefatory clause and prepositional phrases explaining which right, to whom and why are removed, the remaining, basic sentence of the 2A is: "the right shall not be infringed." Not "by Congress", not "by the states", not "by the people". The right shall not be infringed by anyone. Period.

    Interpretations to this effect have been offered as early as 1803: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." (Marbury v. Madison) and in 1966: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation that would abrogate them." (Miranda v. Arizona). (There may be others as well, but I know that those two decisions speak very clearly to the point.)

    If a citizen can afford to buy an Abrams tank or a F-18 with full armament, there is no reason yet stated therein why he or she should not be able to purchase it. Most cannot, but the intent was that the citizenry should be at least as well armed and armored as the "military". Do not forget that they did not trust a standing army in peacetime.

    The courts have been less than forthcoming in supporting the 2A, but this does not change the Founders' intent.

    Blessings,
    B
     

    Coach

    Grandmaster
    Emeritus
    Trainer Supporter
    Local Business Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Apr 15, 2008
    13,411
    48
    Coatesville
    I have been thinking about the Second Amendment quite a bit lately. I am actually doing research for a seminar paper on the subject. One thing that has become more clear for me lately is how fragile the right to bear arms really is. I don't mean that simply from a legal perspective. There is plenty of rhetoric out there about the difference between a citizen and a subject, and so forth.

    But one thing I have been noticing lately is that there have been a number of times in US History where people have been disarmed or out gunned and it was at gun point not in court, and once it is done it is done. Slave revolts, Ruby Ridge, Waco, race riots, Whiskey Rebellion, Katrina. And many other times by state and local law enforcement.

    Legal challenges aside maintaining the right to bear arms through force would be tremendously difficult once law enforcement decided you need to be disarmed.
     

    jblomenberg16

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    67   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    9,920
    63
    Southern Indiana
    You are likely correct in that the 2A will never be repealed when it's too easy to simply "redefine" it. You are also correct that the 2A does not define which arms we, the people, may possess. Instead, the Constitution, in the 10A, very specifically defines the role of the fedgov: If a particular power is not Constitutionally defined, the fedgov does not have that power. If that same power is prohibited to the states, they do not have it either, but it instead rests with the people, the individual citizens.

    The 1A speaks very clearly that "Congress shall make no law" restricting free speech, free press, free religion, peaceable assembly, or the right to petition gov't for redress of grievance. It says nothing about the states doing so, nor does it prevent the people from doing so.

    The 2A is much more encompassing, in that when the prefatory clause and prepositional phrases explaining which right, to whom and why are removed, the remaining, basic sentence of the 2A is: "the right shall not be infringed." Not "by Congress", not "by the states", not "by the people". The right shall not be infringed by anyone. Period.

    Interpretations to this effect have been offered as early as 1803: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void." (Marbury v. Madison) and in 1966: "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or legislation that would abrogate them." (Miranda v. Arizona). (There may be others as well, but I know that those two decisions speak very clearly to the point.)

    If a citizen can afford to buy an Abrams tank or a F-18 with full armament, there is no reason yet stated therein why he or she should not be able to purchase it. Most cannot, but the intent was that the citizenry should be at least as well armed and armored as the "military". Do not forget that they did not trust a standing army in peacetime.

    The courts have been less than forthcoming in supporting the 2A, but this does not change the Founders' intent.

    Blessings,
    B


    Great follow on post! Now where can I get one of them there F-18's? :rockwoot:

    In all seriousness, you're as right as right can be. The real question that we as citizens must then ask, is if our government doesn't have the power, either at the local, state or federal level, how do we implement our wishes?

    Part of that answer does come full circle, as it is through the election of our leadership to help defend and uphold our values and desires. Another part comes through excersizing our rights to free speech, free assembly, and the right to bear arms, among other things.

    What we often forget is that, "We, the People," really do have a lot of power, our government actually works for us, and if we don't agree with the decisions they're making, that our votes really can create the "change" that most every candidate claims they'll make. All of this is independent of the $millions spent on campaigning and mudslinging.
     

    SavageEagle

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    19,568
    38
    I say we start an INGO War Chest and all pitch in to buy a fully equipped Abrams Tank and few Hummers fully loaded and setup with .50 cal's! :D

    Carry on!
     

    flagtag

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 27, 2008
    3,330
    38
    Westville, IL
    The Constitutiion puts NO LIMITATIONS on what type, size, caliber, style, number, color, manufacturer, transfer, etc.

    And "shall not be infringed" means EVERYONE at every level - citizen, city, county, state, federal are prohibited from touching our firearms (of any description and includes any laws concerning them). :patriot:
     

    kludge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Mar 13, 2008
    5,360
    48
    Pass a law to infringe = break oath of office

    It's black and white.

    The 2A is my barometer for ALL politicians.

    P.S. God bless Orrin Hatch, the finest statesman in my recollection.
     

    Bill of Rights

    Cogito, ergo porto.
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Apr 26, 2008
    18,096
    77
    Where's the bacon?
    So I guess that the $10 question is what are"WE" going to do about tihs?

    As I have quoted before, so again:

    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." --President John F. Kennedy

    In Appleseed, we are taught of the "three strikes of the match" it took to ignite the American Revolution. I've often wondered what those matchstrikes will sound like when it happens again... but I hope there is never a reason for me to hear them myself.

    Blessings,
    B
     

    Santee

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jun 19, 2008
    87
    6
    Any office holder, including judges, that seeks to enfringe, upon any right guaranteed by the Constitution, has violated his/her oath of office and should be held accountable for that violation. Many past and present office holders and judges, on both sides of the political fence, would be guilty of this violation.

    Whatever infringements of our rights that exist are there because, WE THE PEOPLE, have not given a ****, as a whole.

    We are the ones that have allowed the infringements of our 2nd Amendment right. :draw:

    And as a whole, we have stopped the gun grabbers from going into that area for several years, or face being voted out of office.

    But given an inch, they will take those arms away from, WE THE PEOPLE, as quickly as they can. Liberty must be ever vigilant!!!

    CCW4ME has posted this on several sites, and it speaks to the biased attitude of those who try to muddle the plain language of the 2nd Amendment:

    To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria.

    Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this:

    "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed."

    Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California? (end quote).

    And yet, the gun grabbers do everything they can to muddle a perfectly plain and understandable amendment. And they will lie to the public at every opportunity in order to achieve their goal of disarming citizens.
     
    Top Bottom