What if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?

[Debater Slayer]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

There's way too many guns that have been produced and sold, there's no way they'd find them all, and there's no way to prevent them from being sold on the black market. There's no way people wouldn't take their already manufactured guns apart and learn how to design their own.

I believe we're in too deep, if we abolished guns now then the criminals using the guns would get the upper hand. And even if there is some anti-hero with a gun, that does happen to save the day from a bad guy with a gun, society would see that as more justification to re-establish the amendment.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

You probably would have a war.

Unlike other countries, this is a constutional issue.

 

[JustGeorge]

I'm with @The Sum of Awe on this. We're in too deep.

I abhor guns, but making them illegal at this stage in the game would likely be largely problematic. They're already here, they already exist, and those that shouldn't have them are often not on record for having them, having obtained them illegally, or stolen them. You wouldn't be able to remove the guns from this population, and that would give them an upper hand.

I also imagine you'd have a shoot out in some regions, with a lot of normally decent folks being completely unwilling to give up this aspect of their culture(because it really does seem to be cultural for some).

 

[Colt]

Suppose it was overturned, what would be the punishment for keeping your gun? Imprisonment??? They aren't doing much with people who use guns in the commission of crimes now as it is! Slap on the wrist, light sentence! Would they then become more serious about people who use guns for crime after they making owning a gun a crime?????

 

[Wildswanderer]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

Gun confiscation would not work here. Sure, they would get some, but it's going to be a blood bath, and no sane law enforcement group wants to be the ones to try to enforce it.
Basically all it would do is turn millions of law abiding citizens into outlaws.

 

[Heyo]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

First off, I feel the need to attack the premise, even though that is bad style.
There is no need and no reason to repeal the Second. It would be enough to repeal the current interpretation of it. When you can still own and use a gun within "a well regulated militia", most of the problems could be attacked.

In either case nothing would change immediately. You don't have a constitutional right any more but you still have your guns. The next step would have to be implementing laws that restrict gun ownership. It would be easier without the constitutional rights and some communities would jump on the occasion. But there is still the NRA and most federal politicians are in their pocket. Change is unlikely.

The second Amendment isn't the problem. Resistance against any regulation, how sensible it may be, is.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There's way too many guns that have been produced and sold, there's no way they'd find them all, and there's no way to prevent them from being sold on the black market. There's no way people wouldn't take their already manufactured guns apart and learn how to design their own.

I believe we're in too deep, if we abolished guns now then the criminals using the guns would get the upper hand. And even if there is some anti-hero with a gun, that does happen to save the day from a bad guy with a gun, society would see that as more justification to re-establish the amendment.

We can't do anything that would take care of that tomorrow, but even the greatest journeys begin with a single step.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Suppose it was overturned, what would be the punishment for keeping your gun? Imprisonment??? They aren't doing much with people who use guns in the commission of crimes now as it is! Slap on the wrist, light sentence! Would they then become more serious about people who use guns for crime after they making owning a gun a crime?????

Gun confiscation would not work here. Sure, they would get some, but it's going to be a blood bath, and no sane law enforcement group wants to be the ones to try to enforce it.
Basically all it would do is turn millions of law abiding citizens into outlaws.

It would depend on how it was handled. I would start off with the government paying fair market value. If you bought a gun that would cost $2,000 in today's money then that is what the government should have to pay gun owners for turning over their weapons. I see far too many gun "buy back" programs with values far too low. Second, there would be very little jail time at first if someone did not turn in their guns. There would only be a huge monetary fine if one did not do so. How many would keep their guns if they were going to face a $10,000 fine minimum? After a reasonable time for turning in guns the huge fines would start. Then after a while for the worst prison sentences would have to begin.

Yes, if they tried to imprison people from the start there would likely be trouble. But if they did this wisely the number that needed to go to prison would likely be rather small.

Oh, and one more thing, a 10% finders reward for those that turned in gun owners. That would mean that gun owners would have to keep their passion very private.

You don't have to immediately jump to imprisonment. Economic means can be much more convincing.

 

[Valjean]

Suppose we kept the amendment and returned to the interpretation it's had for the past 200 years, till recently; or even to its original intent?
It's only recently that the supreme court decided to overlook the "well regulated militia" clause.

Today many of the previously financially secure and socially dominant are feeling insecure, and threatened. An ideology of government oppression, threats from immigrants and even worldwide conspiracy beliefs about 'deep state' takeover and satanic pedophiles is proliferating. Guns give a sense of power and control to those feeling powerless and under threat.

Maybe some public education and curbs on propaganda would help to diminish the movement's influence.

Personally, I'd like to see a little more regulation and oversight of theguns that are already out there. Not to take them away, but to treat them like cars, with shooter's training, licensing, inspections and required insurance.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It would depend on how it was handled. I would start off with the government paying fair market value. If you bought a gun that would cost $2,000 in today's money then that is what the government should have to pay gun owners for turning over their weapons. I see far too many gun "buy back" programs with values far too low. Second, there would be very little jail time at first if someone did not turn in their guns. There would only be a huge monetary fine if one did not do so. How many would keep their guns if they were going to face a $10,000 fine minimum? After a reasonable time for turning in guns the huge fines would start. Then after a while for the worst prison sentences would have to begin.

Yes, if they tried to imprison people from the start there would likely be trouble. But if they did this wisely the number that needed to go to prison would likely be rather small.

Oh, and one more thing, a 10% finders reward for those that turned in gun owners. That would mean that gun owners would have to keep their passion very private.

You don't have to immediately jump to imprisonment. Economic means can be much more convincing.

The only thing I don't agree with is the snitching. Incentivizing vigilantism often makes things worse and delivers a blow to communal trust that can be irreparable. At best it's Mccarthyism and choked with problems that place terrible and unfair and undue burdens on others, at worst it's a witch hunt like happened at Salem.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Suppose we kept the amendment and returned to the interpretation it's had for the past 200 years, till recently; or even to its original intent?
It's only recently that the supreme court decided to overlook the "well regulated militia" clause.

Today many of the previously financially secure and socially dominant are feeling insecure, and threatened. An ideology of government oppression, threats from immigrants and even worldwide conspiracy beliefs about 'deep state' takeover and satanic pedophiles is proliferating. Guns give a sense of power and control to those feeling powerless and under threat.

Maybe some public education and curbs on propaganda would help to diminish the movement's influence.

Personally, I'd like to see a little more regulation and oversight of theguns that are already out there. Not to take them away, but to treat them like cars, with shooter's training, licensing, inspections and required insurance.

I do believe that the meaning of the word "regulated" has changed. Back then a well regulated militia was just a well armed one. I have seen that argument made and evidence that supports it. To have a well regulated militia of that sort an armed civilian population was necessary.

EDIT: This is not a right wing source:

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf


"What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."

 

[Orbit]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

Australia handled that with a massive gun buyback.

 

[fantome profane]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow. The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

What would then happen to the millions of guns currently in possession of American civilians? Would they be retroactively confiscated (which would probably be impossible to enforce reliably), or would they be grandfathered in?

Why would the repeal of the second amendment make gun ownership illegal?

There is nothing in the U.S. constitution that specifically states you have the right to own a car. But U.S. citizens do own cars. There is nothing in that says “in order to ensure the rapid heating of burritos the right to own a microwave shall not be infringed”. But take a look in your kitchen.

I live in Canada. There is no specific right to own guns, but gun ownership is still pretty common.

Repealing the 2nd amendment would not make gun ownership illegal and would not lead to gun confiscation. It might make it a little easier to have common sense gun regulations, but that is all.

 

[sun rise]

I live in Canada. There is no specific right to own guns, but gun ownership is still pretty common.

Canada is much more sensible in many ways compared to the USA.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would the repeal of the second amendment make gun ownership illegal?

There is nothing in the U.S. constitution that specifically states you have the right to own a car. But U.S. citizens do own cars. There is nothing in that says “in order to ensure the rapid heating of burritos the right to own a microwave shall not be infringed”. But take a look in your kitchen.

I live in Canada. There is no specific right to own guns, but gun ownership is still pretty common.

Repealing the 2nd amendment would not make gun ownership illegal and would not lead to gun confiscation. It might make it a little easier to have common sense gun regulations, but that is all.

It would be a first step in making gun ownership illegal or at least as regulated as Canada's gun ownership is. Right now the Second Amendment makes it verry hard to pass gun control laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Canada is much more sensible in many ways compared to the USA.

Hey!! I resent that. It is true, but I still resent the fact that we are a unsensible country!!

 

[fantome profane]

It would be a first step in making gun ownership illegal or at least as regulated as Canada's gun ownership is. Right now the Second Amendment makes it verry hard to pass gun control laws.

Are you worried about the government confiscating your microwave oven?

 

[Revoltingest]

It would be a first step in making gun ownership illegal or at least as regulated as Canada's gun ownership is. Right now the Second Amendment makes it verry hard to pass gun control laws.

Politics makes it "verry hard".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you worried about the government confiscating your microwave oven?

No, and since I do not own any guns nor plan to buy any I am not worried about them trying to confiscate those either.

The fact is that we do need gun control of some sort in this country. That is obvious to all but the most obtuse people. I was merely explaining why it is difficult to enact such laws.