During recent discussions about gun laws I have heard many people say that the Constitution was written more than 200 years ago and the original authors of the second amendment did not know that today's weapons would exist. This is true! The men who wrote the Constitution, though, were not just looking out for their time. They were actually making decisions and writing this document with the idea that they were doing so for generations to come. (Wouldn't it be nice if our current politicians thought like that?)
At the time that the Constitution was written, things were different. Slavery was legal. Women were not allowed to vote. There were no term limits for the President. Alcohol was legal, then it wasn't, and now it is again. All of these items were changed by amendments to the Constitution.
If, as people point out now, guns need to be regulated by the government, then a Constitutional amendment must be proposed and ratified. This right cannot be taken in any other manner - not by laws passed by the legislative branch nor by orders given by the executive branch. If this is accomplished in any other way, then the entire document becomes void, and we become a nation without a governing document. Anyone can do anything, and our rights will be gone.
Article V of the Constitution for the United States of America is as follows:
The
Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of
the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a
Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be
valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when
ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or
by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of
Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided
that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand
eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth
Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
So, if there is a need to change any part of the Constitution, whether it be the second amendment, "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." OR the thirteenth amendment, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except
as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly
convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to
their jurisdiction", it must be done by an amendment, according to the document that is the basis for our nation.
Please take a few minutes to read the Constitution again. This is the document that governs our nation. http://constitutionus.com/
Thanks for posting your thoughts, thoughtfully. In my estimation, and not being a constitutional lawyer, I'd say that the constitution lays out rights and structures but does not include a lot of specific regulations. Off the top of my head, let's look at free speech. Granted by the constitution, but the FCC exists and regulates what is broadcast, by whom. And we have libel laws, however weak. So I'd say that an amendment would be unnecessary to change gun regulation, if you take that view of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteI however would love to see an amendment that clarifies the language of the 2nd amendment, because from my point of view the phrase 'well-regulated militia' is important too. I believe that phrase suggest that 'arms' should be regulated. Nuclear and biological weapons are arms, that we've agreed to regulate and that the people can not currently keep. So I'd like to see a consensus on how we want to regulate weapons of all sorts.
Further, if we look at the next phrase about the security of a free state, I'd think that most people would see that to mean the people need arms to protect the state from invasion or to prevent tyranny from within. However, none of the weapons that are current legal could protect the state from an invading force or from the overwhelming force that our own gov't currently has. Ten thousand rounds and an assault rifle doesn't match a hellfire missile fired from 100 miles away. We have already regulated ourselves out of the possibility of the people defending the state, so that seems moot to me, although its right there in the 2nd amendent. Home protection or crime prevention don't seem to be covered by the constitution, in my reading.
So anyway, examining the constitution and considering changes is a great idea. Thanks for the post and the opportunity for discussion.
Thank you for commenting. I do agree that the Constitution, purposefully, does leave out many of the specific regulations. This is what makes the "American Experiment" so difficult to define and has had strong opinions on both sides of the Constitutional interpretation from the very beginning. As much as everyone wants to laud our "founding fathers", they also did not agree on many of these items and so wrote them in a way that all could agree.... and left us wondering what it really means.
DeletePart of the purpose of this writing was to address those who continue to say that the Constitution is outdated. One friend suggested that we join the Amish in Pennsylvania if we want to hold onto that old way of life. I do believe that we need to better define "Arms" in such a way that it is ratified by a majority of the legislature or states, and thus reaches consensus. Under Woodrow Wilson,in 1913, there was a movement to better define the Constitution and several amendments were proposed, some eventually ratified. I believe it is time for that type of clarification once again.