Could attempts to repeal the 2nd Amendment allow it to be strengthened as well?

[rickyrick]

I’m no scholar, but I thought I recalled if there was a constitutional convention, then that would open all of the bill of rights to possibly be altered.

I don’t remember where I heard this, but for some reason I had the impression that if one is open for change then all amendments could possibly be altered at the same time.

Could attempts to repeal, actually cause it to be strengthened, like the militia phrase removed?

Excuse my ignorance if way off.

Interestingly enough, I think the recent demands to repeal the second, the proposers are admitting that the 2nd guarantees the right of gun ownership to individuals, and not the militia.

 

[zukiphile]

I’m no scholar, but I thought I recalled if there was a constitutional convention, then that would open all of the bill of rights to possibly be altered.

I don’t remember where I heard this, but for some reason I had the impression that if one is open for change then all amendments could possibly be altered at the same time.

Short of a Mad Max scenario in which the living envy the dead, you will not see a constitutional convention. We have a far more modest and orderly process for amending the COTUS via a single amendment. The ERA almost made it in the 1970s, but fell short on state ratifications.

Could attempts to repeal, actually cause it to be strengthened, like the militia phrase removed?

The removal of the militia clause wouldn't strengthen the text of the amendment. Current law construes the militia clause to be introductory and not a limit on the right.

Interestingly enough, I think the recent demands to repeal the second, the proposers are admitting that the 2nd guarantees the right of gun ownership to individuals, and not the militia.

It's reasonable to see an implicit acknowledgement in the desire to repeal the amendment. I would not conclude that repeal advocates think a correct reading guarantees an individual right. If you speak with them about it, you may find that they only mean to reverse Heller, which they see as an error.

EDIT - The following isn't directly responsive, but intended to explain why you don't want things reworked generally.

The basic constitutional framework for government was rooted in an emerging and very seriously considered parliamentary reality in England. The idea is that your worst enemy, even when very popular won't have all the levers of power merely as a result of the most recent election.

Beyond structure, we have a number of rights that are periodically unpopular. Rights to trial, against self-incrimination, unreasonable or warrantless searches, of due process, freedom of speech, association, etc. become targets of popular rage periodically. Remember how upset people were about the OJ Simpson trial? Alan Dershowitz spent a lot of time explaining to people on the tv why apparently guilty defendants get the benefit of standing rules.

Those rules and amendments took a lot of time and effort to assemble, and they protect us from an awful form of government, democracy. It would be a terrible waste to toss that protection in the trash.

 

[rickyrick]

My opinionated interpretation of the second amendment can be simplified to mean: “because we have guns, so can you” as the government needs a militia to maintain order and insure national security, the population needs to have guns in order to keep the government from using the Militia against them for tyrannical reasons.

Again only my opinion, that’s why I posed the question in the general forum.

 

[carguychris]

There are, by definition, absolutely no constitutional limits on what may be enacted in a constitutional convention. The entire legal framework of the United States is potentially on the table, all at once.

This is simultaneously the greatest advantage and the greatest danger of holding a constitutional convention.

The COTUS has a lot of useless dead weight in it (e.g. letters of marque and reprisal), and there are certainly things that could be improved, but I shudder thinking of the sort of idiocy that could become law if a convention were held.

Let's stick to single amendments.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Rickyrick, in principle, you're right, but that is exceedingly unlikely to happen. A constitutional convention is one of two ways to change the Constitution. It's initiated at the state level -- 2/3 of the state legislatures have to vote to petition Congress to call one. Article V, where these processes are laid out, refers to it as a "convention for proposing amendments," so once it's convened, anything goes in terms of what delegates can try to get passed. So the convention would be held, would do whatever it does -- and then 3/4 of the states would have to ratify any proposed changes in order for them to take effect.

Yes -- once a constitutional convention has been called, the representatives of the states can propose and vote on any changes they see fit. However, this is a much more difficult process to initiate and carry through than the other way to change the constitution, which requires Congress to vote for a proposed amendment with 2/3 majorities of both houses. Once that happens, again, the proposed amendment goes to the states, 3/4 of which must ratify it.

There has only ever been one constitutional convention -- the first, in 1787, when the Constitution was drawn up. All of the amendments since then have been accomplished by the second process.

Short of a Mad Max scenario in which the living envy the dead, you will not see a constitutional convention.

I sincerely hope you're right about this -- but it's worth pointing out that 27 state legislatures have in fact called for a convention for the purpose of passing a balanced budget amendment; only seven more would have to do so in order to make it happen. So while it's very unlikely, that's a long way short of Mad Max territory.

The COTUS has a lot of useless dead weight in it (e.g. letters of marque and reprisal), and there are certainly things that could be improved, but I shudder thinking of the sort of idiocy that could become law if a convention were held.

Yes -- all sorts of idiocy could be passed, but fortunately, it would still have to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. Even with a convention, it would not at all be easy to make wholesale changes -- and that's a very good thing!

 

[zukiphile]

My opinionated interpretation of the second amendment can be simplified to mean: “because we have guns, so can you” as the government needs a militia to maintain order and insure national security, the population needs to have guns in order to keep the government from using the Militia against them for tyrannical reasons.

The Militia probably includes you if you are between 17 and 45. In approximate terms, it is the population.

If I were to re-state the 2d. Am colloquially, it might be "Each of us has a right to possess and carry arms, and no law can change that."

 

[rickyrick]

Thanks, it’s clearer to me now. I was pretty sure I was misunderstanding some of the processes involved.

 

[jugornot]

It is a common sense check on the power of a standing army. An armed citizenry overthrew the rule of an oppressive government with a standing army. The Second Amendment guarantees the right to do it again if the need arises. It is a reflection of the birth of our nation.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Rickyrick's question has been answered to his satisfaction, so I think we can safely close this now.