What if the Second Amendment Were Repealed?

[Curious George]

It's literally not. If you are a male US citizen between 18 and 45, you are a part of this "unorganized militia". Meaning that you are reserve militia, not a part of the well regulated Militia, but that the Government - either State or Federal - has the right to conscript you into service should the need arise. Unorganized Militia is not strictly covered under the 2nd Amendment

It literally is…

you are now using the word unorganized to exclude from “regulated” and you are equating “regulated” as used in the second amendment with “organized” as used in 10 U.S.C. § 246. This is speculation on your part.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

Depending on the view those 'outlaws' can be regarded as citizens protecting the Constitution.

"All enemies, foreign and domestic"

Its all a point of view.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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."

Also the militia in those days owned their personal firearms and took them home with them.

 

[Revoltingest]

"At the time of the American Revolutionary War, militias were groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states"

So.... That would be cops, the National Guard, etc. Groups of able-bodied men, not your average citizen.

"Madison, the eventual author of the Second Amendment, wrote in Federalist 46 of the 'last successful resistance of this country against the British arms.' Here the term 'arms' refers generally to the British invasion and all its weaponry, including cavalry, artillery, and naval power."

I guess I can Constitutionally own a battle ship.

"Expanding on Hamilton's theme of deterrence, Madison then argued for the establishment of a militia of 'half a million of citizens with arms in their hands' "

So... Again not every Tom, Richard and Harry. Madison even limited this Militia to 500,000 citizens.

Constitutionally, the "militia" is a far larger
group than just the National Guard.
Although I say it should be expanded
to include females.

 

[Revoltingest]

There must be some other serious crimes that she is guilty of.

Oddly, that's something regularly heard from
cops who arrest someone, ie, that they don't
know what crime to charge'm with, but they'll
find something.

 

[Brickjectivity]

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?

Making our own weapons might be outlawed next and then the ability to make them. For example it might be required that in order to operate lathes a machine should might have to prove it was not using that lathe to produce weapons.

In addition other technologies which could be considered weapons could also be banned, theoretically. For example the government could ban technological knowledge and books about it. We'd need a new amendment to cover things like that. Probably we do, anyway; however at this time they can be considered protected for two reasons. Firstly technology is a weapon. Secondly anything not expressly excluded in the USA constitution is automatically a right of the public. The second reason is a little thin, as it has proven easier for the government to ban rights not mentioned in the constitution. I predict bans of knowledge (about weapons or anything dangerous) to follow though not immediately.

I imagine there would also be a lot of patting on the back "We did it" kind of stuff by the anti gun groups. Perhaps there would be some tears of joy, but across the aisle there would be grimaces and worries.

I do not think it would change the murder rate which in the USA is pretty low, however it would probably decrease the suicide rate. The murder rate tends to be related to other factors as can be seen in comparisons between murder rates in USA and murders in English speaking countries that do not have gun rights, adjusted for population differences. The suicide rate, however, is a different story. More people are willing to commit suicide with a gun than with a kitchen knife.

It would change the number of people shooting themselves by mistake.

Overall not much would change at first. I think that the repeal of such an amendment would not last, because the desire and the demand for it would keep it in public discussion. It would be another endless conversation like the one we are continuing to have about abortion.

Should the US government ever be taken over by some crazy person, the US population would have to rely upon the good will of the police and military to affect a coup. We citizens would not have much ability to be any threat ourselves.

Protests would not have the same leverage. Protestors needs some kind of leverage such as money or unity or connections or fame or something like that. If they haven't got anything then they will likely be ignored. One strong lever for peaceful protests is the threat of unpeaceful protests. It is a very strong lever, too. Its what makes peaceful protests impressive. There is a difference between peaceful protests by an armed populace that chooses peace and peaceful protests by an unarmed one which simply has no ability to do anything.

Gun companies would lose a lot of business. A lot of shops would close.

Gun collecting would come under threat. The government might try to confiscate older guns. Most likely it would lay down arbitrary rules about which guns were protected antiques, and it might require that their firing pins be removed or that they were in some other way disabled.

Potential invaders of the USA would be encouraged. This is an issue, because invaders often wish to subdue a population. They reconsider when facing an armed populace which can perform guerilla warfare.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

When it comes to interpreting the Constitution it is best to go by the intent of the writers.

Well, therein lies a huge problem; we have little to no clue what the Founders meant. In fact this was one of the reasons it was strongly suggested and expected that the Constitution be rewritten every 20 years, because it was understood that times change.

As well, if we're to be strict about the meaning of Militia based on the 1770's, then women cannot privately own guns, as well as anyone over the age of 45.

The main concern was limiting the threats to the nation. By that reasoning we should be opposing private militias today since they are a bigger threat than their lack would be.

I very much agree that the threats to our nation are greater from within than without; in no small part our obsession with guns and gun ownership, but also this ownership in the hands of several far-right terrorist groups.

you are misreading. The “members of the national guard” modifies “female citizens” in that sentence.

Am I? The article is taken as a whole for inclusion into the National Guard, covering men of those restrictions and including women of voluntary enlistment.

you are now using the word unorganized to exclude from “regulated” and you are equating “regulated” as used in the second amendment with “organized” as used in 10 U.S.C. § 246. This is speculation on your part.

No, it really isn't. As "regulated" means - since the 15th Century - having organizing rules and regulations. It literally means "to control by rules". Being "unorganized" is the furthest thing from being regulated, much less well-regulated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, therein lies a huge problem; we have little to no clue what the Founders meant. In fact this was one of the reasons it was strongly suggested and expected that the Constitution be rewritten every 20 years, because it was understood that times change.

As well, if we're to be strict about the meaning of Militia based on the 1770's, then women cannot privately own guns, as well as anyone over the age of 45.


I very much agree that the threats to our nation are greater from within than without; in no small part our obsession with guns and gun ownership, but also this ownership in the hands of several far-right terrorist groups.


Am I? The article is taken as a whole for inclusion into the National Guard, covering men of those restrictions and including women of voluntary enlistment.


No, it really isn't. As "regulated" means - since the 15th Century - having organizing rules and regulations. It literally means "to control by rules". Being "unorganized" is the furthest thing from being regulated, much less well-regulated.

I am going to have to disagree about whether the language of that is well understood or not. The Supreme Court in their 1939 decision were rather clear and if one looks at it without a strong anti-gun bias the intent is clear. Can you find examples of "militias" from that time who's guns were provided by the government? State or federal? And your dating is slightly off on the language. This would be the language of the 1790's, after the Revolution, not before. That was when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written.

 

[Stevicus]

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?

I just got to this thread, and I see it's already up to 5 pages.

If the Second Amendment were repealed, I don't think it would be some kind of immediate, overnight thing to relieve all gun owners of their firearms. I could see it being done incrementally, over the course of several years with a long grace period. If it even happens at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oddly, that's something regularly heard from
cops who arrest someone, ie, that they don't
know what crime to charge'm with, but they'll
find something.

The mullet alone, male or female, that's a month in lockup.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just got to this thread, and I see it's already up to 5 pages.

If the Second Amendment were repealed, I don't think it would be some kind of immediate, overnight thing to relieve all gun owners of their firearms. I could see it being done incrementally, over the course of several years with a long grace period. If it even happens at all.

Yes, some states would see no need. Others would be rather quick and would be pressuring any neighboring states to meet their standards. Statewide bans would not be nearly as effective as a nationwide one. One can always travel state to state.

 

[Revoltingest]

The mullet alone, male or female, that's a month in lockup.

So...you're a cop IRL?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So...you're a cop IRL?

LOL! No, which is probably a good thing for all mullet wearing citizens. Though the streets of my town would be safe from the wild sarcasm of Joe Dirt and his kind.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Or Texas abortion laws.

You're really going to compare the right to kill your offspring to the right to own a firearm? Facepalm!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Regarded with suspicion, perhaps. But the US National Guard has it's beginning in 1636, well before the Revolutionary War. It was around during the Founding Father's time as the Militia.

I'd quibble on them being seen as 'The Militia' in any singular sense, but perhaps you meant it as a collective term.
But whilst you're right about the formative years of the militia, there was no National Militia, nor indeed a nation to connect it to in 1636. You're talking more about the ability to draw a line from those early colonial militia through to the National Guard. Worth noting, then, that 1787 was a key year in that the anti-Federalists wanted to ensure militia control remained where it had been to that point...with the states. They also wanted to ensure there was no standing Army, somewhat as a direct consequence of the impact Cromwell's standing army had allowed in England (more the dictatorship part than the deposing of Charles, of course).

As a compromise position, and over time, various Militia Acts were passed, extending the ability of the President (for example) to directly access state militia for various purposes with less impediment, and to set guidelines over which citizens were mandated to join militia, and which were excused.

Who controlled the militia (plural), what expectations there were on the 'well-regulated' considerations, and whether these were in place of, or as a suppliment to a federal standing army were major discussion point, and points of controversy.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

You're really going to compare the right to kill your offspring to the right to own a firearm? Facepalm!

You're really going to wave away the point you made about 'paying people to turn in their neighbours' being communistic, because this instance of it aligns to your religious beliefs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're really going to compare the right to kill your offspring to the right to own a firearm? Facepalm!

That is not "offspring". An abortion prevents offspring. Facepalm yourself. But it appears that you were for that immoral law, why the inconsistency on your part?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Yes, some states would see no need. Others would be rather quick and would be pressuring any neighboring states to meet their standards. Statewide bans would not be nearly as effective as a nationwide one. One can always travel state to state.

When we brought in tighter gun controls here, there was a range of things over time which occurred. This included an amnesty period for disposal of weapons, a buy-back scheme for legal weapons which would now become controlled, time to apply for licenses where special consideration was allowed for, etc.

And at the end of all this, private gun ownership dropped about 20%, albeit very quickly. The thought that gun control would lead to the government 'taking everyone's guns' seems...well...overstated. Hysterical even. But obviously some guns would become illegal, with the intent being to reduce the number in circulation in the short term, and reduce the new number of those going into circulation over time.

Gun Control in Australia, Updated - FactCheck.org

 

[Stevicus]

Yes, some states would see no need. Others would be rather quick and would be pressuring any neighboring states to meet their standards. Statewide bans would not be nearly as effective as a nationwide one. One can always travel state to state.

Yes, this is true, and if the Second Amendment is repealed, I can see states enacting their own versions within their own state constitutions (there may be some state constitutions with that already, just in case). And considering that it would take 3/4ths of the state legislatures to repeal the Second, it's a non-starter at this point.

 

[Wildswanderer]

That is not "offspring". An abortion prevents offspring. Facepalm yourself. But it appears that you were for that immoral law, why the inconsistency on your part?

What law?
I don't like red flag laws.