Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
1/25/2018 7:38:29 AM
Posted: 6/24/2002 11:30:03 AM EST
[Last Edit: 6/24/2002 11:32:46 AM EST by stubbs]
This is from [url]www.gunsandammomag.com[/url]. [b]Time For A 28th Amendment[/b] One mans approach to clarifying the gun rights issue By Chuck Klein The recent Emerson Decision from the 5th District Court of Appeals acknowledged what we've known all along: That people have the individual right to keep and bear arms (U.S. v. Timothy Joe Emerson, 99-10331, 16 October 2001, www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-10331-cr0.htm). However, like so many other court decisions, it creates more problems than it solves. The court confused the issue by reserving the government's power to restrict certain aspects, such as regulating the bearing of concealed arms and other possible infringements. Therefore the mode of bearing--as well as the type of arms that we can keep--is still subject to subjective government control. If any one word could emulate the controversy over the Second Amendment, it has to be "semantics"--the meaning of words. The words "arms" and "people" mean different things to different persons. To some on the far left, the only "people" who should be allowed to "keep and bear arms" would be active-duty military personnel and police. On the other hand, the extreme right has touted that "people" means any and all persons. Militia extremists are convinced "arms" means anything in use by the military, including tanks, bombs and rockets. The opposite camp firmly believes it only refers to weapons in use at the time of the Constitution's ratification-- c.1790. The word "People" certainly cannot refer, for pragmatic reasons, to everybody. If all "people" could "keep and bear arms," then we'd have to allow prison inmates to carry concealed and permit grade schoolers to swagger across the playground packing a .25 Baby Browning. That's not realistic or practical--any more than restricting "arms" exclusively to that class of "people" who have the power of arrest. Perhaps the time is right to enact a new constitutional amendment to clear up the confusion and uncertainty created by the courts. So as not to fall into a trap of ambiguity again, the wording to this new amendment, the 28th Amendment, must be sure, certain and unequivocal. Some might think it rather presumptuous that a mere "gunwriter" could draft something so significant as a constitutional amendment. However, since the original Constitution was written by amateurs, and since we, just regular law-abiding laymen, are the ones most affected by the new amendment, it stands to reason that one of us should be trusted with its authorship. Therefore I propose this 28th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. . .
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 11:31:11 AM EST
AMENDMENT TWENTY-EIGHT SECTION 1: Any citizen of the United States over the age of 21, who is not under indictment for or has not been convicted of a felony crime of violence or felony illegal distribution or trafficking in any drug of abuse; or has not been adjudicated as a chronic alcoholic, drug dependent or mental incompetent; or is not under the influence of alcohol or any federally controlled substance, has the right to keep and bear arms anywhere this instrument has jurisdiction. Intention of the framer: Any person who is a citizen of the United States (an inducement for those living here as foreign aliens) and does not fall under one or more of the disabilities has the right to own and carry guns. This section does not grant the right, it only recognizes this inherent and intrinsic right to keep and bear arms. The right extends to any physical location under the control of the United States Constitution. SECTION 2: The bearing of arms is prohibited within an enclosure where notification is made restricting the bearing of arms and safe provision is made to secure such arms. Intention of the framer: Any public or private entity has the option of forbidding the carrying of arms into or onto its enclosure (building, fenced-in area) as long as said entity posts a notice and provides for the arms carrier to safely store his arms. This way, courthouses, police stations and department stores, etc., not wishing persons to be armed within their enclosures can establish a "coat check" for guns. SECTION 3: "Arms" means any breech loading device weighing less than fifteen pounds, unloaded, and capable of discharging by the action of an explosive or combustible propellant, a non-exploding projectile or projectiles of which the projectile[s] is [are] not greater than .505 inches in diameter; "bearing" of arms means to carry, either openly or concealed; "keeping" arms means possessing, collecting or having control of arms.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 11:31:42 AM EST
Intention of the framer: Most non-gun owners and many gun owners would feel uncomfortable with their neighbor hauling around a bazooka or other mega-destructive device. Barrel and stock lengths, calibers (up to .50) and fully automatic arms are not restricted as long as such arms do not weigh more than 15 pounds unloaded. This section does not preclude local governments from enacting and enforcing "activity laws" such as pointing firearms (assault) or including panic by openly carrying arms into crowded public arenas. SECTION 4: Each Territory or State of the United States may license/test persons who wish to bear arms in public; fees and complexity of testing for such licensing shall not exceed that which the licensing State or Territory establishes for a motor vehicle operator's license. Intention of the framer: By allowing licensing and carrying of arms either openly or concealed, we greatly enhance our chances of ratification while at the same time establishing just who is and who is not a citizen. States might be more inclined to ratify Amendment Twenty-Eight if they believed income could be generated from fees (or not lose the fees they now receive for CCW permits or hunting licenses). Since Section 1 guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, all permits must be on a "shall issue" basis. The tests and the procedure for securing the license cannot be any more complex than what a State requires for its motor vehicle operators' license--study a pamphlet, take a written test and demonstrate proficiency. This section only applies to bearing arms in public--it has no control on those who collect or bear arms on private property. SECTION 5: This 28th Amendment voids all previous federal, state and local statutes, laws, court decrees, executive orders and legislative acts that pertain to the keeping and bearing of arms. Intention of the framer: This section is to make it clear that this new amendment has superseded all other laws, statutes and executive orders and court rulings--federal, state or local! [b]I've not included prohibitions against registration as I have problems with that--if some dirt bag kills me, I want the cops to know where he got the gun. Maybe we could establish a joint NRA/SAF/BATF agency to monitor/control registrations. What do you think?[/b]
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 11:32:56 AM EST
Get rid of the drug and alcohol stuff and you will be at about 90% right.
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:03:10 PM EST
Barrel and stock lengths, calibers (up to .50) and fully automatic arms are not restricted as long as such arms do not weigh more than 15 pounds unloaded
View Quote
Don't most .50 cals weigh in at 20 or more pounds?
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:20:08 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:22:38 PM EST
He stated right at the end that he's not against registration. That definitely makes him far more against us than for us in my book. There are several problems with this. Nice try guy, move along. Personally I think trying to tinker with the second amendment would only do us a lot more harm than good. Besides it's fine, what part of "...shall not be infringed" is so goddamn hard to understand. I say leave our consitution alone, and if or when they ingringe too far......vote from the rooftops. Mike
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:29:42 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/24/2002 12:47:19 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 3:11:03 PM EST
Originally Posted By Big_Bear: I agree with you guys. Mr Klein's attempt to clarify the issue opens up a whole new can of worms. He can't expect to promote a Constitutional amendment and not have every word, phrase, and tenet nitpicked and analyzed. I say leave it alone. A Supreme Court ruling is what we really need but unfortunately that does not appear to be forthcoming. Emerson will have to stand on its Federal Court precedence.
View Quote
I agree with you guys too. When it comes to guns, the shorter, more simplified amendment we have, the better off we are. The only thing better than the current second amendment would be one that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 3:50:35 PM EST
SECTION 2: The bearing of arms is prohibited within an enclosure where notification is made restricting the bearing of arms and safe provision is made to secure such arms.
View Quote
Sign on all highways into Kalifornia: THE BEARING OF ARMS IS PROHIBITED IN THIS STATE!
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 4:47:51 PM EST
Link Posted: 6/25/2002 4:57:53 PM EST
Top Top