Are there enough pro-gun states to pass a Constitutional amendment?

[DngrZne 0]

My understanding is that 2/3 of the states can call a Constitutional Convention to propose a new amendment, which then must be voted for by 3/4 of the states. Could this be done to strengthen the 2nd Amendment, bypassing the Federal government entirely? It would seem like there might be enough pro-gun sentiment in the country, with most states being pro 2nd Amendment outside of the big cities.

[rightisright 3]

There already is an Amendment. The Second.

 

The problem is the idiots in government don't CARE. The Constitution and its Amendments mean NOTHING to them. What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is ambiguous?

[DngrZne 0]

To normal, intelligent people, nothing. But unfortunately our government is instead run by politicians.

[PDM 91]

Interesting hypothetical. You'd need 34 states to call a convention (this method has never been used). Congress can also approve a proposed amendment by a 2/3 supermajority vote which is then sent to the states for ratification (I think this is how prohibition was passed). This method will obviously never happen, so a state call for a convention to propose the amendment would be the only way (I'm not sure how a national convention would actually work). You'd need 38 states to vote to ratify any amendment. The clear anti-gun states that I can name are: NY, NJ, MA, MD, CA, Ill. Possible anti-gun states (or at least anti-gun enough not to ratify an amendment strengthening the 2A) that I can think of are Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio, Maine and maybe a few others. You'd think it might be theoretically possible -- and it does seem more likely than an amendment repealing the 2A -- but I doubt it could ever happen.

[DngrZne 0]

I just worry that at this point we are relying on the courts to "interpret" the amendment, and they seem to like to leave a lot of wiggle room in there for themselves, not to mention we have to worry about Obama's next activist appointments.

[scatterbrains 0]

problem i believe with a constitutional convention is that once called ALL the amendments are up for "change"...NO THANK YOU!!

[voyager9 3,434]

My understanding is that 2/3 of the states can call a Constitutional Convention to propose a new amendment, which then must be voted for by 3/4 of the states. Could this be done to strengthen the 2nd Amendment, bypassing the Federal government entirely?

 

My concern is that once a Convention is called it could be subverted unless the scope is specifically limited. A convention to "Strengthen" the 2A could end up as one to "Change" 2A.. and then we know what direction that would go.

[DngrZne 0]

Short of a Supreme Court decision, how else could the words "keep and bear" and "arms" be clarified to reach the Founders' original intentions and not be subject to the anti's intentional misinterpretations?

[jackandjill 683]

My understanding is that 2/3 of the states can call a Constitutional Convention to propose a new amendment, which then must be voted for by 3/4 of the states. Could this be done to strengthen the 2nd Amendment, bypassing the Federal government entirely? It would seem like there might be enough pro-gun sentiment in the country, with most states being pro 2nd Amendment outside of the big cities.

If anything we need to codify a right to immediately (and automatically) strip politicians of power and impose a lifetime ban

if they proposed or voted in favor for ANY legislation that is stuck down by Supreme Court at the least.

 

Best case scenario, a right to hang Traitors, of course after affording them Due Process.