• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Federal proposal to require 2/3rds majority vote to impose gun control made by M. Lee

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
At least with a 2/3rds vote it would drastically decrease the amount of gun control legislation we would later have to fight in the supreme court. Although I agree that the government holds no power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms regardless of popularity, this would be a step in a direction closer to where we want to be.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
If this idea was to become a actual amendment to the constitution it would eventually dismantle the second amendment. It is a really dumb idea, or a Trojan horse, that sounds good on the surface but eventually will defeat us. What we need is courts who interpret the constitution as it is written, that is the only amendment I desire.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
If this idea was to become a actual amendment to the constitution it would eventually dismantle the second amendment. It is a really dumb idea, or a Trojan horse, that sounds good on the surface but eventually will defeat us. What we need is courts who interpret the constitution as it is written, that is the only amendment I desire.
Woah...who said anything about amending the constitution? I was under the impression this is an amendment to a proposed budget resolution...not a constitutional amendment?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
Woah...who said anything about amending the constitution? I was under the impression this is an amendment to a proposed budget resolution...not a constitutional amendment?
How could it have any force if it was not a constitutional amendment, if it is just a amendment to a bill it can be as easily removed as put in place. Or even worse another congress could add a amendment to a bill to allow gun laws with one third of congress, or with just rules like the EPA does. It is a silly idea, IMO. We need legislatures and judges that know and follow the constitution. If a law can be passed that would accomplish that, then we would be safer from tyranny.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
How could it have any force if it was not a constitutional amendment, if it is just a amendment to a bill it can be as easily removed as put in place. Or even worse another congress could add a amendment to a bill to allow gun laws with one third of congress, or with just rules like the EPA does. It is a silly idea, IMO. We need legislatures and judges that know and follow the constitution. If a law can be passed that would accomplish that, then we would be safer from tyranny.
I'm pretty sure there are many things that are not in the constitution that carry force. I agree that we need legislatures and judges that know and follow the constitution...the problem is that we don't. Right now gun control can be passed with a majority vote...then we have to fight it. What's the problem with changing it so it has to be a 2/3rd vote before we have to fight it? What we need is a legislature that isn't allowed to bring up ANY gun control measures ever, but we aren't going to get that anytime soon unfortunately.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
I'm pretty sure there are many things that are not in the constitution that carry force. I agree that we need legislatures and judges that know and follow the constitution...the problem is that we don't. Right now gun control can be passed with a majority vote...then we have to fight it. What's the problem with changing it so it has to be a 2/3rd vote before we have to fight it? What we need is a legislature that isn't allowed to bring up ANY gun control measures ever, but we aren't going to get that anytime soon unfortunately.
Because if it can be changed one way, it can be changed another. We need less laws instead of more, and the laws that are there need to be constitutional. A 2/3 vote could happen, and would then be a harder challenge, because it would become accepted policy. Much the way the courts now look on privilege cards as a right, as what happened in the fourth circuit court recently. If there are votes NOW to enact such an amendment to a bill, then there should be votes to remove all laws that violate the constitution NOW.
 

SouthernBoy

Regular Member
Joined
May 12, 2007
Messages
5,833
Location
Western Prince William County, Virginia, USA
Truth be known, none of the articles of the Bill of Rights are amendable, according to Madison and Jefferson and I would bet Mason and Henry as well. It's too bad that this was not included in the preamble to the Bill of Rights to keep any such trespasses at bay. The unfortunate thing is that so many believe that any part of the Bill of Rights can be altered or abolished and that is due to these folks maybe having never received a good civics education in their youth (a deliberate plan perhaps??).

So altering or repealing the Second or First or Fourth or any of the articles of the Bill of Rights is not only acceptable, but with some you can bet favored to advance their cause and agenda. Such things bring down great nations and we are not immune from this.
 

marshaul

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Aug 13, 2007
Messages
11,199
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia
WalkingWolf is basically correct.

The current legislature can declare gun control needs a 2/3 vote, but if that isn't a constitutional amendment subsequent congress would only need a simple majority to overturn that limitation itself, at which point the same simple majority could then pass whatever law they want.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,539
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
At least with a 2/3rds vote it would drastically decrease the amount of gun control legislation we would later have to fight in the supreme court. Although I agree that the government holds no power to restrict the right to keep and bear arms regardless of popularity, this would be a step in a direction closer to where we want to be.
It is a step in the wrong direction because it is a de facto admission that the government may pass gun control and that it gets to determine how hard it is for them to do so. All it would take is a simple majority to overturn that law, thus making it a matter of getting a simple majority to pass new gun law. But the damage would have already been done. That law, hanging around, and being accepted by the People, would mean that gun law is acceptable.

It is not.

Let's fight for it the way we are supposed to: in the courts, at the ballot box, and, if it comes down to it (God forbid), by using those tools that the Right gives us, certainly not by caving in to government's usurped authority to make gun law.
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
It is a step in the wrong direction because it is a de facto admission that the government may pass gun control and that it gets to determine how hard it is for them to do so. All it would take is a simple majority to overturn that law, thus making it a matter of getting a simple majority to pass new gun law. But the damage would have already been done. That law, hanging around, and being accepted by the People, would mean that gun law is acceptable.

It is not.

Let's fight for it the way we are supposed to: in the courts, at the ballot box, and, if it comes down to it (God forbid), by using those tools that the Right gives us, certainly not by caving in to government's usurped authority to make gun law.
They can already pass gun control laws with a simple majority vote. Once they do it's up to us to challenge the laws. Does that mean that it's constitutional to pass gun laws? No...but what's the problem with making it harder for them to try? Sure it sucks to have to try this since they shouldn't be bringing up gun control at all..but it's not like we currently have something that prevents gun control bills...if we did we wouldn't be up in arms right now contacting senators telling them to vote against all the gun control legislation. I would rather them have to get 2/3rd's vote than simple majority...either way if it passes we have to fight it in the courts...why not make it harder for them to begin with?
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,912
Location
North Carolina
They can already pass gun control laws with a simple majority vote. Once they do it's up to us to challenge the laws. Does that mean that it's constitutional to pass gun laws? No...but what's the problem with making it harder for them to try? Sure it sucks to have to try this since they shouldn't be bringing up gun control at all..but it's not like we currently have something that prevents gun control bills...if we did we wouldn't be up in arms right now contacting senators telling them to vote against all the gun control legislation. I would rather them have to get 2/3rd's vote than simple majority...either way if it passes we have to fight it in the courts...why not make it harder for them to begin with?
Because it is government three card monty...
 

EMNofSeattle

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,671
Location
S. Kitsap, Washington state
Congress cannot bind the hands of a future congress without amending the constitution.

simply speaking, this is a political stunt and not a serious law...

any law requiring a minority of congress to pass a law is clearly unconstitutional, not even a matter for debate it would violate the mechanics of how the system works.

and any future senate that can pass a gun control with a simple minority can simply do away with this law by simple minority.... although any law is still subject to filibuster....
 

ADobbs1989

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2012
Messages
465
Location
Alabama
I haven't. Those who support this bill are buying into that usurped authority.
Regardless of whether they have the constitutional authority or not, they have already obtained the authority to do it. Getting that authority taken away is going to be a long journey, and forcing a larger majority vote could be one small step in that journey. Doesn't really matter if you buy into it or not...they have the authority right now to pass any gun control legislation with a majority vote. Yes, we need to work to change that back to how it should be, but it's not going to happen overnight, nor all at once.
 
Top