What if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?

[Subduction Zone]

Politics makes it "verry hard".

That too. We are a country of conspiracy theory nuts and they vote.

 

[Curious George]

Suppose the Second Amendment were repealed tomorrow.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?

If The second amendment was repealed then there would be a lot of tension, magnified distrust of the government, and civil unrest in some areas.

I think you would have guns become an even more decisive issue.


Presumably regulation would fall to the states except for some sweeping regulations passed by the federal government.

some states would refuse to honor or enforce the federal regulations that were in place (similar to marijuana) and others would jump on the regulations and make even tighter restrictions. The states who refused to honor the federal regulations would likely secede from the union. The vast majority of people would continue normally and comply with buy back programs or would turn in miscellaneous firearms, but a significant amount would refuse and would hold that it was their patriotic duty to do so. Some states would likely grandfather in current gun ownership and it would be phased out. I imagine you would see a large amount of regulation aimed at penalizing gun use and ownership in an effort towards specific deterrence while others would wait and try to slowly phase out ownership through successive generations.

I imagine there would be a flurry of legislation designed for exceptions and defining where this exception exist and many would scurry to find some exception with which to shield themselves.

I wouldn’t expect that the transition would be handled with the delicacy necessary and would anticipate several decades of litigation, resistance, and bloodshed. Eventually, I would imagine the people would elect officials that would reinstate the second amendment or ambitious individuals would use the resulting discordance to create a second nation.

 

[fantome profane]

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.

I am under no illusions that the 2nd amendment is going to be repealed. I am just answering the hypothetical question and pointing out it would not make guns illegal. It would put gun ownership on the same level as microwave ownership, or coffee maker ownership.

 

[Curious George]

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.

but to many it would signal the writing on the wall. Perceived threats do not have to be real threats to spur action.

 

[Revoltingest]

That too. We are a country of conspiracy theory nuts and they vote.

I see no reason that the 2nd Amendment
prevents useful regulation like secure
storage, or training standards.
Resistance to those is purely political.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The stars align and Congress, the SCOTUS, and the White House all agree that gun ownership shall no longer be a constitutional right.

It will never happen. They can think what they want, but they would have to get the majority of the states to go along with it. Nope. We're a Republic, after all.

 

[Viker]

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?

They'd be grandfathered in. Confiscation would be impossible. There are around 393 million reasons why confiscation would be impossible.
What studies reveal about gun ownership in the US | CNN

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Just stop selling ammo. There ya go.

Loki's balls I hate our cultural fetish with guns...

 

[Revoltingest]

Just stop selling ammo.

You're welcome to stop.
Fortunately, others will continue.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am under no illusions that the 2nd amendment is going to be repealed. I am just answering the hypothetical question and pointing out it would not make guns illegal. It would put gun ownership on the same level as microwave ownership, or coffee maker ownership.

Not the best of analogies since it is rather difficult to show that those objects are regularly harmful. Some states would ban guns if allowed.

I would like reasonable gun control. And that means not only limiting magazine size, it would include more thorough background checks. Very possibly a reduction of ammo velocity. A requirement that guns be locked up for storage by some means in a house. And prosecution if harm arises because someone did not take reasonable measures to secure one's firearms.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

You're welcome to stop.
Fortunately, others will continue.

Mhmm, mhmm... And if there's laws against ammunition being sold to the public?

 

[Debater Slayer]

Australia handled that with a massive gun buyback.

Could a similar approach in the US mean that gun ownership would be a privilege of the wealthy, since they would theoretically have less incentive to hand over their guns?

 

[Debater Slayer]

It will never happen. They can think what they want, but they would have to get the majority of the states to go along with it. Nope. We're a Republic, after all.

I also suspect it will never happen, but I have seen the idea proposed by some people. While I find it too impractical, I'm interested to explore what others think.

 

[Revoltingest]

Mhmm, mhmm... And if there's laws against ammunition being sold to the public?

If government were to ban private ownership
of ammunition, this would a 2nd Amendment
violation. After all, the right to own guns
rests upon the premise that they'd function.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

If government were to ban private ownership of ammunition, this would a 2nd Amendment violation.

UGH again with the bloody Amendment Violations...

1. No it wouldn't. Absolutely nothing in the 2nd Amendment says anything about ammunition, nor the arms that are being "kept and bore" being functional. Especially in terms of private ownership. Technically private ownership isn't even covered as it's a "well-regulated militia" that's mentioned, not "Jim Bob with his shooty stick".
2. The topic here is about the 2nd Amendment being repealed. If the 2nd were to be repealed, "violations against the 2nd" would be null and void.
3. The question then was how to handle the excess of guns in private ownership. Well, stop selling ammo. Once it's all used up, enjoy your excessively large paperweight.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

"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."

That's rather strongly implied.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

And it's an inaccurate claim and sloppy thinking to think regulate in definition has changed that significantly since then. It hasn't. You'll find #2 applies, with degrees of #1 as it is group that functions in a military-like manner.
Definition of REGULATE

regulated; regulating
transitive verb
1a: to govern or direct according to rule
b(1): to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
(2): to make regulations for or concerning

2: to bring order, method, or uniformity

3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of

 

[Revoltingest]

UGH again with the bloody Amendment Violations...

I notice that you missed my post's 2nd sentence.
Here ya go...
After all, the right to own guns rests
upon the premise that they'd function.

Courts generally see thru attempts to
circumvent civil rights by mischievous means,
eg, cops requiring a person to get a permit
for picketing in a public area. Cops trying to
use a permitting process to stop political speech
runs counter to the 1st Amendment.

 

[Wildswanderer]

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.

Sounds like a communistic state. Paying people to turn in their neighbors? I changed my mind... it sounds more like the Nazis.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I notice that you missed my post's 2nd sentence.

No, I didn't. That'd be where I said

nor the arms that are being "kept and bore" being functional. Especially in terms of private ownership. Technically private ownership isn't even covered as it's a "well-regulated militia" that's mentioned, not "Jim Bob with his shooty stick".

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."

Private owners are not Militia. The National Guard is our Militia, and it's pretty well regulated. All that it says for the people is the right to "keep and bear" arms. Not that they need to be functional.

And even still, this solution - the removal of ammunition from public commerce - functions under the thread premise that the 2nd Amendment is repealed. Can't violate what is no longer there.

 

[Heyo]

Politics makes it "verry hard".

I agree - if by "politics" you mean lobbying. Without the gun industry paid NRA there could be sensible regulations like secure storage, loophole free background checks and mandatory training, even with the Second intact and under the current interpretation.