most states have "Shall Issue" CCW and no assault-weapons bans and no magazine limits. this means that if they wanted to, the States could have a Constitutional Convention to clearly enshrine what laws can be passed and what laws cannot be passed, regarding guns. so, why don't the States hold a Constitutional Convention, preempt the Federal Govt, and pass an Amendment stating the following: -there shall be no registration of ANY firearms possessed by the public. -there shall be no limit on how many rounds a firearm or firearm's magazine, can hold. -there shall be no limits on any features possessed by a firearm. -there shall be no permits required to own any firearm. -all law-abiding citizens without any felony convictions shall be allowed to carry a legally posessed handgun, concealed on their person, in all places of the USA except for court houses, and specific federal buildingsz. i mean seriously, why not just do it?
here is a map of the Shall Issue states. clearly, there are more than enough to pass an Amendment pre-empting any new AWB or any other gun laws Hillary wants to pass. why not just do it and end the discussion forever?
I'd like one that would make it a "high crime and misdemeanor" for any federal politicians to attempt to pass gun control laws. - - - Updated - - - the second amendment already prevents any of those stupid restrictions on a federal level.
apparently the 2nd Amendment is not clear enough and needs modern updating to clarrify its exact intent and to limit specific regulations. but maybe all the Shall Issue states don't give a (*)(*)(*)(*) about people who live in California, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Maryland, Washington DC.
you do realize what a silly proposal you have made haven't you? we just need 6-7 justices who actually respect what the second amendment means
why not just make the 2nd Amendment more clear and detailed? SCOTUS doesn't get to decide what gun cases reach their desks. it could be 15 years before another big gun case gets to them.
Actually that is not true, SCOTUS typically rejects all gun cases, the only way would be to sneek in a case under guise of Interstate commerce.
And they all agree 100% to reject gun cases, just as Laywers simply reject a perfectly good way to strike down most gun laws.
this is a great idea, that would put to rest most gun laws in the USA. not sure why the states don't do it, its likely due to laziness and not caring about harsh gun laws in Liberal areas.
You mistake solidarity among gun owners, however, States are one most important part of the equation, Voluntary Reciprocity would be an important step forward.
The 2A is clear especially when get clarification by reading the quotes of those that wrote it as to their intention. It's the anti gunners that keep twisting the intent for their agenda. They will continue to attack the 2A no matter how you clarify it.
Yes and if our Congress had any balls they could accomplish this through legislation using their powers to secure our basic rights as granted by the 14th amendment: Section 1. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States... Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/06/privileges-or-immunities-clause-alive-again/
I have a better Amendment: Civilians ,to be considered anyone armed under any government branch or service local, State and Federal, shall be allowed any firearm weapon with a capacity of no more than two rounds without any issue which is also not concealable to be determined to be carried on ones person in a way not to be undetectable by its design or made to be made so. Any and all other weapons and capacities held at the discretion of the Federal government through one agency to be selected. All other weapons are to be limited to the government. There that would solve issues you can have any one or two shot before reloading bulky weapon and any other weapon that is a firearm would be limited at the governments discretion. And could have bows, crossbows and slings as alternative weapons.
If the "shall not be infringed" part is too complicated of a concept for people to understand I don't know how they're going to figure out the rest of it.
Maybe because a plurality of legislators or voters may change their minds about whether todays state laws will be seen as virtuous tomorrow. There is something to be said about NOT locking everything you think is good policy into either a state or federal constitution. One legislator's protection is another legislators handcuffs.
"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 don't get what's so unclear about that amendment.
I agree !!!! The Gun Ban Lovers keep trying to confuse things by mixing two separate clauses, an agreement that a well regulated Militia is needed for the security of a FREE State, end of first clause, "The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall NOT be infringed." Very simple to understand !!!
