Sunset?

[gadje]

Sunset refers to laws that are set to expire after a certain time.

We all know that reversing the 2A is impossible in today’s political climate.

I wonder if we are willing to pass a new amendment that would sunset 2A on a very long timeline so no one living today would be affected.

For example, everyone born after 2050 would be allowed to buy only one handgun.

Everyone born after 2100 would still be allowed to guy only one handgun but keep it at home, no carry permits.

Would this have any chance of passing in today’s political climate?

Probably not a chance in hell.

[Rolando]

Zero chance.

The only way to fix the issue is to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago

which was when the NRA Appointed Supreme Court Majority expanded the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals, rather than the specified "well regulated militia" as intended by the founders.

[Ted King]

Rolando wrote:
Zero chance.

The only way to fix the issue is to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago

which was when the NRA Appointed Supreme Court Majority expanded the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals, rather than the specified "well regulated militia" as intended by the founders.

Yeah, there is no hope in trying to go the Amendment route. It will never happen. Over a couple of decades if we are lucky there will be enough sensible Justices appointed to the Court that they will at least whittle away at the Heller decision allowing communities to make it harder to buy a gun with real checks on who can own them, limit what kinds of guns they can possess, what they can legally do with them (like severely limit open carry) and things like required routine training and licensing requirements. Maybe way down the road some Court majority will finally throw Heller out completely.

[DeusxMac]

Rolando wrote:
Zero chance.

The only way to fix the issue is to overturn District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago

which was when the NRA Appointed Supreme Court Majority expanded the 2nd Amendment to apply to individuals, rather than the specified "well regulated militia" as intended by the founders.

:agree: 100%!

[Acer]

Australia made its biggest moves after a horrific tragedy. We get one of those every year or so, and it only adds more guns to the mix.

[pdq]

Constitutional convention. I know, this sets off alarm bells in peoples heads, but the crazies have long pushed for one. It requires 34 states to call it, and there is no limit on proposed amendments, which then have to be approved later by 38 states.

An interesting passage from Wikipedia:

Organizations opposed to an Article V convention include the John Birch Society, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Eagle Forum, Common Cause,[16] Cato Institute,[17] and the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity,[18] while the Heritage Foundation has also cautioned against a convention.[16]

That’s two progressive orgs and 5 right wing. Maybe the right wing has more to fear from such a convention than does the left wing. A _lot_ of folks are tired of gun violence.

[cbelt3]

Sorry… I don’t want to repeal the second amendment.

I want, if necessary, to be able to suppress insurrection. That is one of the primary self uses of the second amendment. The next violent attempt to overthrow the government of the people needs to be met by a well regulated and well armed militia of liberals.

[Speedy]

There would be a better shot going the treaty route which would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate for ratification. Perhaps a treaty with Mexico and Canada barring the private ownership of firearms. That would be the easiest to achieve.

Democrats have had such supermajorities in past congresses but it would be unlikely for that to ever happen again. Even when Democrats had such majorities a lot of the senators were racists from the south who would never have backed such a treaty because they feared they would lose the ability to shoot people of color. That fear still exists.

[Acer]

cbelt3 wrote:
Sorry… I don’t want to repeal the second amendment.

I want, if necessary, to be able to suppress insurrection. That is one of the primary self uses of the second amendment. The next violent attempt to overthrow the government of the people needs to be met by a well regulated and well armed militia of liberals.

What? You mean the right to bear arms is given in order to protect the State, not overthrow it???

Interesting Whiskey Rebellion excerpt from wikipedia:

"Throughout Western Pennsylvania counties, protesters used violence and intimidation to prevent federal officials from collecting the tax [on whiskey]. Resistance came to a climax in July 1794, when a US marshal arrived in western Pennsylvania to serve writs to distillers who had not paid the excise. The alarm was raised, and more than 500 armed men attacked the fortified home of tax inspector John Neville. Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax. Washington himself rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency, with 13,000 militiamen provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. "

[Tiangou]

cbelt3 wrote:
Sorry… I don’t want to repeal the second amendment.

I want, if necessary, to be able to suppress insurrection. That is one of the primary self uses of the second amendment...

Via militias, yes. No individual right to bear arms.

If anything, we seem to need the Constitutional Convention to restore the 2d Amendment to its original purpose. (And impose term-limits on Supreme Court justices.)

The purpose of the 2d Amendment is to provide auxiliary troops to the federal government to allow for a small standing army.

The militias serve to "execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions" at the behest of Congress. (Notably, NOT at the behest of the President!)

The military-industrial machine and standing army are the antithesis of the purpose of the 2d Amendment.