28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

I made a gun when I was about 12. It was a pipe with a cap on one end and a hole in the top of the cap. unscrew the cap, insert firecracker, insert ball bearing with a piece of cloth to hold it in place and light the firecracker. Kicked like a mule. Used too big a firecracker. When I was 16, my friends and I made a smooth bore rifle/shotgun (depending on the load) with nipple, a cap in the fire whole, and an external hammer device on a spring and a trigger release lever. Deadly at about 30 yds.

 

I agree, but disagree that all changes to the constitution in the past were an attack on the constitution itself the way this idiocy is. Changes to the constitution generally have strengthened the original intent of the constitution IMHO, except the unconstitutional alcohol prohibition. That was a direct misuse of power and authority just like the drug wars have been. Again just my opinion.

The right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", and to do so is the act of a traitor, and a tyrant.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

They can never stop basic ingenuity, and they know that, their goal is to make criminals of us all and use that against us.

 

Government tyranny, the very reason for the 2nd amendment in the first place. But not to worry, no assault on the second amendment won't happen in our lifetimes. It will not be ratified because it is clear that the founding fathers considered government tyranny to be a major issue.

 

Not to sure about that more than 1/2 of the population are about as ignorant as a sheeple can get, and many more just don't care even though it is in their best interest to do so.

 

My entire career revolved to some extent about machine shop capabilities and while I typically dealt with expensive CNC machining capabilities I wish I had a manual 3-axis Bridgeport in my garage.

The real point is that virtually anyone can produce a perfectly acceptable firearm for self-defense and they don't need to purchase one or to have machining capabilities to do this.

This hypothetical Amendment only relates to "commerce" in firearms that's not protected by the 2nd Amendment and the regulation of commerce in "arms" that is already Constitutional.

 

The amendment would not make the estimated 300 million firearms in the United States illegal to own and while it would prohibit commerce related to firearms it would not prohibit the ownership or possession of firearms. Congress already has the Constitutional authority to create statutory commerce regulations related to "arms" in general that includes firearms under the 2nd Amendment because the 2nd Amendment doesn't imply a right of commerce (i.e. commerce is a statutory privilege subject to regulation).

You could acquire a firearm as a gift or you could make one yourself for you personal self-defense under the proposed Amendment because possession is not prohibited. As noted in a previous post making a firearm for self-defense isn't even difficult to do and doesn't even require expensive equipment. You probably can't make an AR-15 but you can make a smooth bore black powder firearm that is very effective at close range where self-defense becomes an issue.

 

Nowhere in your post is there an answer to my question:
If it is illegal for me to buy a firearm, how is it possible for me to exercise my right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

Wait....
By "sale:" of a firearm, you don't actually mean "transfer"?
That is, people can get around your prohibition by claiming to "gift" firearms to one another?
I

Your amendment makes manufacture of a firearm illegal.

I ask again::
If it is illegal for me to buy a firearm, how is it possible for me to exercise my right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home?

 

Most people lack the tooling or the knowledge. You and I could do it. But I don't think most people have clue one what a Bridgeport is.

I recall the days when you had to pay a premium to get a Bridgeport since the factory had such a huge backlog.

 

You are making several major assumptions in your post. The majority party is about 52% of the population and the Demmys make up only about 46% with 2% being independents. The majority party is the side with the right intelligent approach to the 2nd amendment. The 46% are afraid of their own shadow. As gun ownership has gone up, gun violence has gone down. The pansies are not too smart.

 

Wrong! The 2nd amendment talks about The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. There is nothing about commerce even as implied by the 2nd.

- - - Updated - - -

Eck do tine, hai ja mosum hai rangine. That translate to the extent of your thinking.

 

The congress has NO RIGHT WHAT SO EVER to pass any law which infringes any person's right to acquire a firearm, or keep it locked up, or have a trigger guard, nor does it have the right to make such arbitrary and improper laws as you suggest.

 

Banning firearms in America would instantly lead to a civil war.

 

The 2nd Amendment protects the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" but does not provide any enumerated protections related to "commerce" in arms.

Article I Section 8 specifically enumerates the following power (role and responsibility) to Congress.

Any commodity involved in interstate commerce, or that is potentially an item of interstate commerce, is subject to regulation by Congress and that includes regulations on the manufacture, transportation, or sales of that commodity. Your claim that this provision of the Constitution doesn't exist is obviously false because it's right there in black and white.

 

You keep saying that like it hasn't been proven otherwise.
A general prohibition on the sale an manufacture of guns prevents people who do not already have a gun from exercising their rights to do so.
This is a clear, obvious, prima facie violation of the 2nd.

 

Which tells us that one can acquire if one wants to keep.

But Section 8 does not trump the second amendment. Courts have already held that the "right to keep and bear" is reasonably resumed to mean "legal to acquire" and that ammunition CANNOT be withheld.

That is trumped by the 2nd amendment. If one can keep and bear, one can buy with impunity any legal weapon by any legal buyer. Some reasonable restrictions as to who is acceptable.

 

Your premise is ridiculous. The issue is, if it is NOT addressed in the constitution it is the right of the people. Yet we have allowed our courts to subvert the constitution reading into what is not there by judicial legislation. That is specifically prohibited in the 9th and 10th amendment of the constitution. Your assumptions are reflective of your interest in rule by judiciary.

 

Your referred to "legal weapons" and "legal to acquire" which is subject to statutory laws. The Supreme Court, in the Heller decision, expressly established that Congress has the authority to regulate commerce in firearms through statutory laws. If Congress makes the M-2 Browning .50 caliber machine gun, mainstay of the US military for almost 100 years, illegal to own or possess then a person cannot legally own or purchase one unless they owned it prior to the law becoming effective. If it makes the AR-15 illegal to manufacture, transport, or sell then a person cannot legally acquire a new AR-15 because it would be against the law.

You're arguing against the Constitutional authority of Congress that it has already used extensively. A person is prohibited from manufacturing or possessing nuclear weapons. A person is prohibited from manufacturing or possessing chemical or biological weapons. A person is prohibited from manufacturing or possessing improvised explosive devices such as pipe bombs. These are all forms of "arms" where the manufacture, transport, sales and even the possession are prohibited by law and those laws are unquestionably Constitutional.

 

The authority to regulate interstate commerce by Congress is expressly enumerated in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution. Any commodity that is or could be involved in interstate commerce is subject to regulation by the Congress under the US Constitution.

You mentioned the 9th Amendment because it protects the unenumerated rights of the person but "commerce" is not a natural/inalienable right of the person. You mentioned the 10th Amendment but it only grants limited powers to the States and the People. The States and the People cannot violate any provisions of the US Constitution nor can they violate Federal Laws based upon the authority of the US Congress under the Constitution. If the Congress passes a law regulating interstate commerce, such as prohibiting the manufacture, transport, or sales of a specific type of firearm, then the states can't over-ride that federal law. They might refuse to enforce it, leaving enforcement to the federal law enforcement agencies (e.g. legalized marijuana), but they can't over-ride the federal law.

 

If the AR 15 or ANY firearm is full automatic, yes, and already covered LONG BEFORE Heller.

I qualified my original comment to say legal to own and as such thus covered ALL WEAPONS specifically prohibited. Your "lesson" was bull excrement. I iterate, congress CANNOT constitutionally prohibit legal weapons to any person not designated as a prohibited person. Your ears continue to flap in concert with your mouthl

 

You acknowledge there is a difference between a "legal weapon" and an "illegal weapon" which means that you understand that the Congress can make certain "arms" illegal under the US Constitution. The difference between a legal and illegal "arm" is purely statutory and what is "legal" and "illegal" can be changed by Congress at any time. The only caveat to this is Article I Section 10 that prohibits the imposition of ex post facto criminal law so that which was once purchased legally cannot be made criminally illegal to own in the future.

Congress can at any time ban the future manufacture, transportation, and sales of any "arms" that it chooses under the US Constitution. Effectively the "Arms" protected by the 2nd Amendment are subject to statutory definition by the Congress.

 

For anyone recommending a ban on firearms I would first recommend that we give them our ammunition -- one bullet at a time!

 

Lick FULL AUTOMATIC, or sawed off shot guns or rifles. All others are legal.

Nope, they have tried but it is unconstitutional to go beyond the 1934 gun act.

Congress can at any time ban the future manufacture, transportation, and sales of any "arms" that it chooses under the US Constitution. Effectively the "Arms" protected by the 2nd Amendment are subject to statutory definition by the Congress. [/QUOTE]

 

Depending on which lying political party you wish to believe the largest political party is the non voter. About 40% nationwide, so that means that each party only has a representation of less than 1/3rd of the actual voting age population, under their thumb. If one party or the other could wake up the complacency crowd (not sure that this is a priority for either party for obvious reasons, backfiring on them being the most fearful) they could literally create logical/common sense change that is needed, or the total devastation of what is left of this once great nation.

 

Nuclear weapons were not banned when the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934. Apparently Congress has been able to impose prohibitions on "arms" that are completely Constitutional since 1934. We didn't have background checks in 1934 but we do today for FFL's. Regulations related to firearms and the commerce in firearms have been repeatedly passed, and later confirmed as being Constitutional, since 1934. One such measure was the Gun Control Act of 1968 that imposed significant restrictions on firearms commerce.

This belief that Congress can't go beyond the National Firearms Act of 1934 is simply absurd because it's been going beyond those provisions for decades.