town in Massachusetts to vote out 2nd amendment

[Garbcollector]

https://youtu.be/ecZzpwftKTc

[Squatch]

Good luck with that. It is an enumerated Right and can not be voted out. They can all choose not to exercise their right but it's still there.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

[Citadelgrad87]

This is an interesting legal premise.

It is my position that, since the bill of rights did not create or grant any rights, rather, these are "God given" or natural rights belonging to all free people, they don't "need" to be in there, and removing them should have no legal effect.

[MJB]

Good let the violence begin.....

[flyinbronco]

Any elected official that comes up with garbage like this should be arrested and charged with treason.

[TruOil]

There is a process for amending the Constitution, and this ain't it, which they will find out quickly enough if they try to pass any laws contrary to Supreme Court rulings on the issue. Unless they try to secede. (I seem to recall that Pres. Lincoln had something to say about that too.)

[Epaphroditus]

Insurrection comes in myriad forms. This would be one.

[sealocan]

Having watched just part of that video it seems to me like it's something a citizen of that town has written in as a suggestion to an amendment of one of their current laws or something similar, but I guess I could be wrong maybe it's one of the local politicians who wrote it up. Although it's strange that the name of the politician wasn't mentioned because politicians love their name connected to things, even stupid things.

Having spent a little bit of time in Massachusetts I want to point out something that maybe everyone doesn't know. Even though it's a relatively very small state in size compared to California there is a vast difference in mindset and politics from their coastal bigger cities, like Boston and their surrounding cities , towns and suburbs where most of their population resides to the western part of that same small State, where it is comparatively very rural, where hunting deer and other wildlife is still in part of their tradition.
They're more long gun type people (shotguns and .22 rifles mostly than handgun owners) but the point I'm trying to make is it's not a monoculture of gun haters, even in a small State like Massachusetts.
The problem as always, is where the dense population is there is more crime / violent crime and there are more dumb people being scared by the mainstream mass media blaming the guns alone that are doing all the evil and need to be banned.

And in just like most States it's the same group of easily led by their emotions type people who cannot look at the problem logically who believe that lie.

So they come up with stupid laws that are clearly against everyone's inaliable rights.

[tuna quesadilla]

There won't be insurrection or violence over this.

Sudbury is a very wealthy town absolutely full of leftists.

What the proposal is, for those who didn't follow the link, is that they're voting to ban FFLs and ammunition manufacturers from Sudbury.

There already aren't any FFLs or manufacturers in that town.

The residents of Sudbury will impose upon themselves the tyranny that they desire and nothing will change for them.

[bandook]

This is an interesting legal premise.

It is my position that, since the bill of rights did not create or grant any rights, rather, these are "God given" or natural rights belonging to all free people, they don't "need" to be in there, and removing them should have no legal effect.

Another reading of the Bill of Rights may be in order.

Start with the 4th amendment (Unreasonable Search and seizure) and you'll find several rights that are 'created' by the constitution.

e.g. there in no God given right to a trial by jury. It is granted by the constitution.

The 2nd is worded different from the others.
It doesn't say "the people have the right to keep and bear arms" (that's a granted right), but it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". that's acknowledging an existing right and telling the (federal) government to keep its paws off.

Either way, this is all academic. There is an amendment process that can easily redefine 'God given' rights.

The battle here is not that guns are a God given right (guns didn't come into existence until very recently in human history, so it's tough to honestly make that claim), but that the proper way to remove the right to keep and bear arms is not through the courts, but through a constitutional amendment.

[Dr.Lou]

I wonder what oath of office they swear to.

[Sir Toast]

This is an interesting legal premise.

It is my position that, since the bill of rights did not create or grant any rights, rather, these are "God given" or natural rights belonging to all free people, they don't "need" to be in there, and removing them should have no legal effect.

Excellent point. However, the Second Amendment does place a ban on the government's interference with the people's right to keep and bear arms. So if it is eradicated, then the government is free to ban all firearms in the town, right?

(Obviously putting aside the issue that a municipal code cannot preempt federal law.)

[Rickybillegas]

Owning a gun is not a "God given right', but self defense is.
The owing and carrying of firearms flows from that right.
Whatever are the 'common weapons' of that day applies to the right of self defense. 3,500 years ago the right to carry a spear or dagger. 2,000 years ago it would have been the right to carry a sword or bow and arrow.

[Citadelgrad87]

Another reading of the Bill of Rights may be in order.

Start with the 4th amendment (Unreasonable Search and seizure) and you'll find several rights that are 'created' by the constitution.

e.g. there in no God given right to a trial by jury. It is granted by the constitution.

The 2nd is worded different from the others.
It doesn't say "the people have the right to keep and bear arms" (that's a granted right), but it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". that's acknowledging an existing right and telling the (federal) government to keep its paws off.

Either way, this is all academic. There is an amendment process that can easily redefine 'God given' rights.

The battle here is not that guns are a God given right (guns didn't come into existence until very recently in human history, so it's tough to honestly make that claim), but that the proper way to remove the right to keep and bear arms is not through the courts, but through a constitutional amendment.

Aced Con Law, thanks. We aren't talking about the 4th amendment, we are talking about the 2d and natural law.

[2761377]

Another reading of the Bill of Rights may be in order.

Start with the 4th amendment (Unreasonable Search and seizure) and you'll find several rights that are 'created' by the constitution.

e.g. there in no God given right to a trial by jury. It is granted by the constitution.

The 2nd is worded different from the others.
It doesn't say "the people have the right to keep and bear arms" (that's a granted right), but it says, "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". that's acknowledging an existing right and telling the (federal) government to keep its paws off.

Either way, this is all academic. There is an amendment process that can easily redefine 'God given' rights.

The battle here is not that guns are a God given right (guns didn't come into existence until very recently in human history, so it's tough to honestly make that claim), but that the proper way to remove the right to keep and bear arms is not through the courts, but through a constitutional amendment.

the Constitution and it's history does not exist in a vacuum. it's important to evaluate it in the context it was written.

the preambles of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself give the context.

the "natural" rights, (the framers said Creator), are painted with a broad brush. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness, a more perfect union, Justice et al need specificity to be functional.

the Second Amendment derives from several of these enumerated rights. So does the Fourth. the entirety of the Bill of Rights services the "natural" rights of Men.

the Constitution does not create any rights, only the form or structure of their preservation.