28th Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

Twenty-Eighth Amendment - Prohibition of Firearms

Section 1. After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of firearms within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for firearm purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2. The Congress and the several States shall have concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. ​

Arguably the most extreme fantasy of anti-gun advocates and the most extreme fear of pro-gun advocates would be a Constitutional Amendment banning firearms similar to the 18th Amendment that prohibited intoxicating liquors so I've drafted such and amendment fundamentally identical to the 18th Amendment that addresses firearms. I've included a poll but more important is a discussion on what the actual impact would be in the United States and we have the history of the 18th Amendment to use as precedence.

I've never heard of a proposal for a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting firearms from even the most extreme anti-gun advocates although there are some extreme anti-gun activists calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment that would leave the protection of our "right to keep and bear arms" to the statutory control of Congress and State Legislatures.

http://www.salon.com/2016/02/15/inevitability_or_pipe_dream_meet_the_second_amendment_repealists/

The poll, while non-scientific, allows for options for supporting ratification, opposing ratification, leaning towards ratification, leaning against ratification giving members a lot of options but we also need to understand that a Constitutional Amendment cannot be proposed by the People and is not voted on by the People of the United States and can only be proposed by Congress or by a Constitutional Convention of the States and requires 3/4ths of the States to ratify.

As noted we can also understand the effect and impact of the proposed Amendment based upon the 18th Amendment as well as addressing some other considerations so let me mention just a couple.

As we know from the 18th Amendment the prior lawful ownership of firearms would not be effected. When the 18th Amendment went into effect any alcoholic beverages that were already in the possession of people remained completely legal to own and consume. Many of the wealthy in America stocked up prior to the 18th Amendment during the one year after ratification with literally hundreds of cases of liquor. After the implementation of prohibition they were prohibited from selling that stock of alcohol as well as transporting it across state lines but it was not subject to confiscation and was completely legal to own. So effectively, if the proposed amendment was ratified, we would still have over 300 million firearms that would be lawfully owned in the United States. While the lawful owner of the pre-existing firearms could be prohbited from selling the firearm to another person or from transporting it across state lines (or perhaps even within the boundries of a State), and obviously from manufacturing a new firearm they would not have their firearms confiscated unless they violated one of the new statutory laws related to manufacture, sales, or transportation of firearms in the future.

The proposed Firearm Prohibition Amendment would not conflict with the Second Amendment but it would modify it be excluding firearms. The Second Amendment protects the "right to keep and bear arms" and is not specific to firearms. Arms, in the context of the Second Amendment, can be defined as any object used as a weapon that extends the reach of the person to "beyond a (physical) arms length" or that effectively increases to force/power of the human arm/fist. Examples could be a knife, sword, crossbow or even brass knuckles. All other types of "arms" (with the exception of firearms) would still be protected by the Second Amendment.

While I cannot foresee any proposal, such as the one I provide hypothetically, having any possibilty of ever becoming a reality in my lifetime or even for generations to come it does represent a possibility in the distant future. It is certainly worthy of consideration from an intellectual perspective because society can change and based upon possible changes we can look at the different aspects of such an Amendment to the US Constitution.

 

Ayuh,.... Remind me again just how great the 18th worked out,..??..??

 

Where is the choice;

to imprison any elected official who would go against their oath of office and submit such a traitorous proposal, along with any of their cohorts who would sponsor this trash.

 

Proposing and/or supporting an Amendment is not traitorous and does not violate the oath of office even if the proposed amendment is stupid or unacceptable. Revising the Constitution by amendment is supported by Article V of the US Constitution.

By analogy the proposed "Marriage Amendment" that would have limited marriage to only a man and a woman is far more nefarious in violating the rights of the person than the amendment I've hypothetically proposed for consideration. Do you call all of the Republican supporters of the Marriage Amendment traitors?

 

LOL - It didn't and that is an excellent point. Laws of prohibition rarely work out because all the do is create a criminal black market where violence is quite common.

Our statutory prohibitions against certain drugs (e.g. marijuana, cocaine and heroin) has created a huge problem of the black market, criminal gangs, and violence in America and even beyond our borders in places like Mexico and South America.

Excellent post addressing a very serious issue when it comes to prohibition of almost anything.

 

Ayuh,.... Without the 18th, 'n the pot Tax a few years later, there would never have been a supposed "Gun Problem",.....

The "Gun Problem" is a direct result of the unintended consequences of the prohibitions,.....

 

The UK banned most guns (allowing them under the most Draconian of regulations) yet we still have murders here.

If you ban guns, they will use a knife.
If you ban knives they will use a screwdriver.
If you ban screwdrivers they will use a cricket bat.
if you ban cricket bats......

 

Yes it is a violation of their oath because they swear to protect and uphold the constitution and such an amendment would be not only traitorous ( as in the security of the nation) but obviously in violation of that oath. The constitution is in place to control the power of government not to make the people subservient to tyranny.

No I would not consider the right to marry, as an important issue as the right to bear arms, which is again about the national security of the nation. Marriage is at best a property right issue, and I have never agreed with republicans in imposing stipulations, that would exclude the individual rights others assume. The marriage issue is a religious imposition on other citizens who neither share or are required to share the views that others may hold dear.

 

I hope the 28th Amendment will become law if Hillary is elected President.

 

I'd vote for this, but it's too impractical. All we have to do is cap the amount of weapons allowed to be made by manufacturers. They are the real bad guys here.

 

This is incorrect, of course it would conflict with the 2nd Amendment because it would create an obstacle to freely exercise rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.

Exactly, it is NOT specific and therefore covers ALL arms. The proposed amendment is arbitrary and abrogates one or more protected rights.

 

What would that do?

 

Stop the arms trade where we sell weapons to other nations, and would stop the sheer amount of firearms being produced.

 

You mean like how alcohol stopped being produced? Countries will still have access to as many guns as they want and you would only increase demand here. If you think it through, it will only drive the industry underground and no one will have to go through a background check to buy illegal guns.

 

You can't compare guns and alcohol, two very different markets and two very different items. We need to stop making so many weapons.

 

I just did. The items and the market may be different, but the outcome is the same. You will not be able to come up with a benefit to limiting production. Other nations will just buy them elsewhere and you will move gun purchases from legal businesses that perform background checks to back alleys. Wheres the benefit?

 

We can arrest those who buy/sell guns on the illegal market. Other nations can buy them elsewhere, but at least we won't be supplying them! Most of ISIS's weapons come from.....you guessed it....the USA.

 

"The right to bear arms" specifically pertains to small arms which include firearms so yes, it would conflict with the Second Amendment

 

We already arrest those who buy and sell guns (Or drugs) illegally. Are there people who want drugs or guns that can't get them? No!

You are proposing we limit legal purchases by law abiding citizens by decreasing the supply. There is zero benefit. It can only give criminals more control of the industry the same way they control illegal drugs now.

 

Yep, leave the market to Russia and China et.al. Makes perfect sense.

 

I vote against Ratification

- - - Updated - - -

everyone has a right to buy a gun

what should be criminal is the misuse of a gun, not the buying or selling of a gun

- - - Updated - - -

everyone has a right to buy a gun

what should be criminal is the misuse of a gun, not the buying or selling of a gun

 

It would just allow the Chinese to sell more of the guns they make......

 

Why? We are at record lows of murders per capita in this country (lowest since we started systematically recording it in 1960). We are at fairly low overall violent crime rates. Why should we stop making weapons? We have the least amount of gun regulation since we've had when murders were at near record levels in 1993 (over twice the murder rate we have now). More law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry guns today than in 1993, yet our murder rates are lower than they have been. Please tell us a cogent reason to stop making weapons?

- - - Updated - - -

That's because Obama (and McCain) armed the "moderate" Syrian rebels, much of whom became ISIS.

 

Yea banning them the way you want now is like Nuclear Non-Proliferation in the sense that the people that already have guns are now at an advantage over the people that dont, and the people that dont cant get new ones cuz they are illegal to make. You either have to go in and get rid of every single one, or let everyone have them, but the in between it just too destructive of a law to pass.

 

Once again arguably true which is why when I was the first to vote in the poll I selected "leaning against ratification" because prohibition generally has very negative consequences outweighing in possible benefit. It would take one hell of a compelling argument for me to support the proposed Amendment which I find unlikely. I don't have a "carved in stone" opinion because I'm aways open to compelling arguments and when I voted in the poll no compelling arguments supporting the prohibition had been made in the thread.