Two-line proposed amendment could have huge effect on gun control laws [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Two-line proposed amendment could have huge effect on gun control laws


DOC44
10-19-2012, 04:28
Two-line proposed amendment could have huge effect on gun control laws

La. -- It is all about the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in the fight over Amendment No. 2 to the state constitution.

"Amendment No. 2 is a simple amendment. It's just two lines," said George Peterson of American Freedom and Supply in Jefferson Parish.

In its two sentences, Amendment No. 2 calls the right to bear arms "fundamental" and adds that any restrictions on that right would be subject to "strict scrutiny."



http://www.wwltv.com/news/local/Second-Amendment-at-the-heart-of-proposed-state-Amendment-No-2-174840101.html?fb_action_ids=10150959212907537&fb_action_types=og.recommends&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%2210150959212907537%22%3A4993585834

Hooray for states' rights.

Doc44

JBnTX
10-19-2012, 06:59
Hooray for the swamp people.
Other states can learn a thing or two from Louisiana.

michael_b
10-19-2012, 09:53
Kansas did something similar as soon as Brownback took office as governor- I believe.


-On mobile

janice6
10-19-2012, 09:56
I have no hope for long term gun rights in a liberal state like mine. Castle Doctrine vetoed twice so far.

Happy for you other guys though.

JBnTX
10-19-2012, 11:07
I have no hope for long term gun rights in a liberal state like mine. Castle Doctrine vetoed twice so far.

Happy for you other guys though.


Don't give up, get involved.

Write letters, send E-mails, make phone calls, get other gun owners to do the same.

When the anti-gunners rear their ugly heads here in Texas, the public outcry is so loud that they quickly slither back under the nearest flat rock.

Bruce H
10-19-2012, 11:36
We don't need any additions.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is a plain straight foreward sentance. Anyone not understanding it should be schooled.

Gunnut 45/454
10-19-2012, 16:42
Bruce H
Here, here!! Thats how all State COT's should read! No way to interpet it any other way then -LEAVE MY FREAKING GUNS ALONE! The above LA admendment is ripe for liberal interpation! Get rid of "strict scrutiny" and put SHALL NEVER BE INFRINGED. :supergrin:

beforeobamabans
10-19-2012, 16:53
Indiana Article 1, Section 32:

"Section 32. Arms--Right to bear

Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."

For those who try to twist the true meaning of the federal constitution, Indiana's language does a good job of simplifying the idea after 60 years of reflection.

BLACKMAGICK
10-19-2012, 17:57
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
-- Samuel Adams










And he makes a great beer too! :drink:

Gunnut 45/454
10-19-2012, 20:23
BLACKMAGICK
And as we've seen the courts and congress have done just that! To me there is zero room for interptation of the 2nd. The language is plain to anyone with a lick of common sense! With the last sentence as clear as day - no one will make any law that infringes on this right! This not for only the Feds but States as well! As to be part of the Union every state has to abide by the COTUS!:supergrin:

beforeobamabans
10-19-2012, 20:33
BLACKMAGICK
And as we've seen the courts and congress have done just that! To me there is zero room for interptation of the 2nd. The language is plain to anyone with a lick of common sense! With the last sentence as clear as day - no one will make any law that infringes on this right! This not for only the Feds but States as well! As to be part of the Union every state has to abide by the COTUS!:supergrin:

This is why the state constitutions that followed the federal are the best interpreters of the original. If the various states thought the original intent only pertained to militias, would Indiana's have been so simple and clear cut 60 years later? There is no doubt what the original language of the 2A means except for those intending mischief.

Gunnut 45/454
10-19-2012, 22:49
beforeobamabans
Yep thats when the Progressives came up with the BS living document crap! Cause under normal common sense logic they could never get any changes made! So they invented the living document logic! But it falls apart once we reread the Framers original thoughts. They intended the Document to stand on it's words as written. Not subject to the whims of the uneducated liberal thugs. Remember these are the same people that tried very hard at the time the COTUS was written to subvert the process. They hate that all Americans were to have freedom. They liked there power and felt they should reign over there subjects as the King of England did.:steamed:

beforeobamabans
10-20-2012, 04:52
beforeobamabans
Yep thats when the Progressives came up with the BS living document crap! Cause under normal common sense logic they could never get any changes made! So they invented the living document logic! But it falls apart once we reread the Framers original thoughts. They intended the Document to stand on it's words as written. Not subject to the whims of the uneducated liberal thugs. Remember these are the same people that tried very hard at the time the COTUS was written to subvert the process. They hate that all Americans were to have freedom. They liked there power and felt they should reign over there subjects as the King of England did.:steamed:

It is hard to believe that any legal professional could deny the plain meaning of 2A, let alone one supposedly qualified to be a SCOTUS judge. The people get it and we are working hard to cleanse the system of politicians who allow these constitutional travesties. For example here, there is no question that Richard Lugar's rubber stamping of Sotomayor and Kagan helped turn the rank and file GOP against him. Come January, he will he replaced with our Tea Party "extremist" Richard Mourdock who has promised to fight for what we believe in. Interestingly, the campaign has had to import McCain, Graham and Christie to stump for him since Lugar continues to pout in the shadows while allowing the Dem candidate to publicly proclaim that he is the heir to "Lugar Republicans". But, these grassroots battles are how we get the courts changed. When the rest of the country gets to see and hear Mourdock in action next year, you will be very pleased with our Senate upgrade.

Bruce H
10-20-2012, 05:42
The real problem is idiot lawyers and judges don't understand plain english. Now it there were a couple of thousand why as and where fores sprinkled in the second ammendment they would understand it just fine.

beforeobamabans
10-20-2012, 05:54
And unfortunately, case law trumps statutory law. So as these judges make these rulings, they supersede the law as written. Hence the philosophy of "living documents".

kirgi08
10-20-2012, 08:39
We don't need any additions.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That is a plain straight forward sentence. Anyone not understanding it should be schooled.

:cool: