Does the 2nd Amendment even exist anymore?

[frenchgunner]

Pardon my ignorance...I've been missing from stateside since I was 12 years old and am only now researching the history of my birth country. Been reading around on calguns and notably saw a thread about a past supreme court justice Stevens on his writings about the 2nd amendment.

So my question: much like in France, the Democrat legislators seem to want strict control on all firearms ownership to the point of elimination...but most similarly, they seem to want to reserve some firearms rights to their cronies. Examples I've seen on this site are California congressman Yee and several of the California sheriffs who seem to be against gun rights but willing to allow their contributors and friends the right to carry guns?

But then if you look to the 2nd party (Republicans) you see that although they campaign on the 2nd amendment, it seems that no one really discusses implementing it the way it is written...that the right to keep and bear ARMS shall not be infringed. It doesn't seem like Americans or especially Californians have the right to keep military type weapons. In fact, the weapons you would be allowed seem to be far inferior to what your military has, or in fact, even what your criminal gangs could fashion...especially looking at some of the gangs active right across the mexican border.

So if the 2nd amendment is not to preserve 'free' states from the federal government and therefore army, what is it for? Just self defence from the holligan that might break in in the night? In that case, what would be wrong with limiting you to muskets? Don't you feel like your Republicans are just paying you lip service for your votes and contributions, and that in fact, the Democrats are much more honest with their constituents about how the governments (state and federal) will be treating their people?

[kygen]

Honestly, both sides are both paying lip service to an extent. I really don't think any modern government wants to see its citizenry armed on par with its military

(edit below)

[-hanko]

So if the 2nd amendment is not to preserve 'free' states from the federal government and therefore army, what is it for? Just self defence from the holligan that might break in in the night? In that case, what would be wrong with limiting you to muskets? Don't you feel like your Republicans are just paying you lip service for your votes and contributions, and that in fact, the Democrats are much more honest with their constituents about how the governments (state and federal) will be treating their people?

Welcome back to the U.S.

In some states, the 2nd Amendment does work. In others, California for example, it's been emasculated.

BTW...we've been told not to talk about the real reason the 2nd Amendment was written because some here feel it's too scary.

[Mayor McRifle]

Yes, the 2nd Amendment still exists. The real issue is how it is being interpreted.

[frenchgunner]

Welcome back to the U.S.

In some states, the 2nd Amendment does work. In others, California for example, it's been emasculated.

BTW...we've been told not to talk about the real reason the 2nd Amendment was written because some here feel it's too scary.

If the second amendment says 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed', then in which states is this actually happening? Wouldn't that be like saying congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech......so long as that speech is subordinate to statements of the government and limited to slogans and popular sayings. Could you really claim that amendment still even existed?

[-hanko]

If the second amendment says 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed', then in which states is this actually happening? Wouldn't that be like saying congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech......so long as that speech is subordinate to statements of the government and limited to slogans and popular sayings. Could you really claim that amendment still even existed?

Idaho is close to the 2nd Amendment. Following is Article I, Section 11 of the Idaho State Constitution...

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Cities also have the ability to write laws prohibiting discharging a firearm in populated areas, with the specific exception of weapons used in self-defense.

CWP's are SHALL issue...no "good cause", no "good moral character", no psychological testing, interviews with friends, neighbors, employers, etc.

SO GLAD I relocated.

[Jimi Jah]

On paper only. Welcome to the land of selective enforcement.

[ChrisC]

Of course it still exists, if it didn't none of us would own firearms. The better question would be, how much has the 2nd amendment been changed or altered. But it still does exist.

[BoonieGhost]

Honestly, both sides are both paying lip service to an extent. I really don't think any modern government wants to see its citizenry armed on par with its military

Ever been to Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland? they also have mandatory 2 years of military service and you get to take your Rifle home with you when you are done...

[kygen]

Ever been to Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland? they also have mandatory 2 years of military service and you get to take your Rifle home with you when you are done...

you are quite right, I totally forgot about those countries. Also, Israel to an extent is like that too.

What I meant, I think, was that countries with huge populations, and a large lower class, do not want equally armed citizens.

[IVC]

But then if you look to the 2nd party (Republicans) you see that although they campaign on the 2nd amendment, it seems that no one really discusses implementing it the way it is written...

It's a long process. Since 2008 when Supreme Court in Heller finally clarified that the 2A applies to individuals and is not connected to militia membership, things have changed a lot politically.

Nationally we have Democrats who are either neutral on gun control or are actively working to restrict gun rights. We have Republicans who are either neutral on gun control or are loosening regulation. Many states are passing symbolic legislation to nullify federal restrictions and many states are completely free *except* for federal rules they cannot override. For example, machine guns and other class 3 weapons are legal in majority of states, but no new ones can be introduced to market due to *federal* regulation, so prices are high.

We are in the process of going through courts to strike down erroneous laws. It cannot happen overnight. If all goes well, we might get a Supreme Court ruling on "carry in public" as early as this year (Drake) and if Peruta stands, we get a "shall issue" in CA and HI in a matter of months.

Republicans currently support this fight. Democrats are our opponents both in legislatures and in courts. If voters told their Democratic representatives to stop it, we wouldn't have to fight.

[RobertMW]

Ever been to Switzerland, Norway, Sweden, Finland? they also have mandatory 2 years of military service and you get to take your Rifle home with you when you are done...

you are quite right, I totally forgot about those countries. Also, Israel to an extent is like that too.

What I meant, I think, was that countries with huge populations, and a large lower class, do not want equally armed citizens.

You need to look up how each of those countries ACTUALLY treat firearms. Not nearly as unrestricted as you think. In fact, most states here are FAR less restrictive than any of those countries.

[onethumb]

Idaho is close to the 2nd Amendment. Following is Article I, Section 11 of the Idaho State Constitution...

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Section 11. Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony.

Cities also have the ability to write laws prohibiting discharging a firearm in populated areas, with the specific exception of weapons used in self-defense.

CWP's are SHALL issue...no "good cause", no "good moral character", no psychological testing, interviews with friends, neighbors, employers, etc.

SO GLAD I relocated.

With great respect to the state of Idaho, I do think that my new home of Arizona embodies the 2nd amendment more than the other states. People here complain that NFA sign off-s are a 6 week wait in Maricopa County, but fail to mention that those signatures are just as guaranteed as is a 'handgun safety certificate' is in CA.

CCW is but one piece. Open carry and access to NFA permits are what set truly 2A-friendly states apart.

[-hanko]

With great respect to the state of Idaho, I do think that my new home of Arizona embodies the 2nd amendment more than the other states. People here complain that NFA sign off-s are a 6 week wait in Maricopa County, but fail to mention that those signatures are just as guaranteed as is a 'handgun safety certificate' is in CA.

CCW is but one piece. Open carry and access to NFA permits are what set truly 2A-friendly states apart.

I would agree.

Idaho is similar in re: NFA sign-off's, but the wait is probably longer. Wife is indirectly connected to a judge through her employer...advice I was given was to get paperwork to his clerk and the sig would be very timely.

[frenchgunner]

Of course it still exists, if it didn't none of us would own firearms. The better question would be, how much has the 2nd amendment been changed or altered. But it still does exist.

By that argument, you're saying that if someone, somewhere in the US owns some sort of firearm, the 2nd amendment to the constitution is still en force? In France, there is no 'right' to own a gun. No 2nd amendment here. But you can still get a category 1 thru 6 permit and can own some sort of gun...usually a .22 or .25 and supposedly for hunting rabbits. Does that mean we also have a 2nd amendment? No.