The Bill of Rights can’t be altered without an amendment
The present assault on the Second Amendment reminds us of the 2013 Western States Sheriff’s Rebellion stopping cold President Barack Obama’s new 23 executive orders further restricting the rights of gun owners without authorization from Congress. But today, Republicans need to be reminded that neither the executive branch, through executive orders, nor the legislative branch, through laws, can constitutionally legislate away an amendment of the Bill of Rights, so banning AR-15’s or bump stocks is unconstitutional. Only a new amendment with 3/4 support of the states, as outlined in Article V of the Constitution, can alter an amendment.
Many may not remember their basic U.S. history courses as to why the Second Amendment exists in the first place. Certainly, when enacted, there was no thought of restricting type of firearm, or where, or who could carry. So its placement as the second most valued freedom in the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with personal safety or even hunting — these were already assumed. It was specifically placed right after freedoms of religion, speech, press, and assembly to make certain that these freedoms were never taken from us. It was aimed (pun intended) squarely at the government. But need we certainly have no fear of the government today?
One must remember that the early patriots did not ask the existing British government if they could revolt against them. They argued in The Declaration of Independence that they were “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” coming from a much higher source than mere man, and that “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government.” God is referenced five times in this document, and thus, they believed, He sanctioned their rebellion. They were expected to suffer evils while sufferable, “but when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariable the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
The right of revolution requires the means of revolution, and this is why the Second Amendment exists. Normally, the ballot box is the only self-correction needed, but they had no intention of giving up the same right that they exercised to give us freedom in the first place. Nor were they pious enough to assume that their correction would stay in place and that future generations would never need the more serious self-correction they used.
The wordage of the Second Amendment was stronger than any other sentence in the Constitution: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” They saw this right as essential to freedom and specifically forbade the federal government any authority with respect to arms, because historically it was always a government that took away liberty.
An armed populace had twice proved its value to liberty in the Revolutionary War. Many do not remember why Lexington and Concord were so important. The Americans learned that the British planned to go door to door to confiscate their firearms, so they gathered and hid them in these two villages. Now the British night gun raid, and Paul Revere’s desperate midnight ride warning the Americans en-route, make sense. The Battle of Saratoga, preventing British conquest of the northeast by General Johnny Burgoyne, was stopped not by the military but by angry farmers with their own military-style assault rifles. This American victory encouraged other countries, notably France, to come into the war on our side. It is doubtful that we would have won the war without an armed citizenry.
The Founders’ attitude regarding guns — even military issue — was clear. Thomas Jefferson wrote, “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” And George Washington said, “A free people ought not only to be armed,” as well as, “They should promote such manufacturies [sic] as tend to remind them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies” (Gun Control, Freemen Report, May 31,1975, p. 1).
The Utah Sheriff’s Association’s letter to Obama was the most vocal in the Sheriff’s Rebellion of 2013. It read in part, “We respect the Office of the President of the United States of America. But, make no mistake, as the duly-elected sheriffs of our respective counties, we will enforce the rights guaranteed to our citizens by the Constitution. No federal official will be permitted to descend upon our constituents and take from them what the Bill of Rights — in particular Amendment II — has given them. We, like you, swore a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and we are prepared to trade our lives for the preservation of its traditional interpretation.”
This is commendable, but will Congress, under Republicans, remember that an amendment, unlike a law, may not be weakened or altered to destroy “shall not be infringed”? The Second Amendment can only be altered by 3/4 of the states with a new amendment, and this is not likely to happen when so many Americans fear their own government.
Articles related to “The Bill of Rights can’t be altered without an amendment”
Letter to the Editor: Talking about school shootings and gun violence
I agree with your commentary on why the second amendment exists. You can’t organize “a well regulated militia” from the citizenry unless the citizens are armed. Citizens of any government that tries to deprive them of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without due process have the unalienable right to revolt in armed revolution against that government. I, like you, am also against gun bans. However there are some realities that need to be included in this discussion.
Your commentary infers that citizens should be armed on an equal footing as the military. Are you just referring to small arms or you suggesting that citizens be given the right to own armored tanks, gunships, and stealth bombers? I ask this because the reality is, small arms only, would not be much of a deterrent to today’s modern military.
Another reality is that there is a significant population of people in this country who are abusing the second amendment right to acquire guns to commit crimes involving gun violence. It seems to me that the majority of citizens in this country are saying that there is no way to stop or even curtail this gun violence without violating or even worse abolishing the second amendment. I however believe that it is possible to find solutions to gun violence without violating the second amendment. That is why I am willing to throw out radical sounding ideas for consideration and debate; because if we keep doing business as usual then we will continue to have gun violence as usual.
Here are a few of those radical ideas. We could require gun safety courses in school. Another idea is derived from the fact that most states require a hunter’s safety course in order to get a hunting license. I say let’s require all gun owners to take and pass a gun safety and gun law course. Upon completion of that course and a background check citizens will be given a gun license that is required to purchase or carry a gun. Another idea comes from the fact that the military teaches proper gun training. We could require all citizens (once they reach the draft age) to serve a minimum amount of time (two years or so) in the military. This would not only give citizens proper gun training but also provide training that would help should they ever be called on to form a well regulated militia.
So let the debate rage on. Hopefully someone somewhere will come up with helpful ideas to stop gun violence without violating the second amendment.