To: President Donald Trump, The United States House of Representatives, and The United States Senate
REAL Actions Towards The Gun Control Problem - Not Fantacies
In response to "Gun Control. Now.", please advise us on HOW the Second Amendment can be "reevaluated".
It is NOT some legislative action that can be passed to "modify it". In 2008 the USSC concluded a sweeping review of the Second Amendment to OUR Bill of Rights and ruled in favor of individual gun owners. The USSC Supreme Court has backed up that ruling in cases since then.
Very recently the State of Illinois attempted to ban its Concealed Carry Laws and a Federal Appeals Court (rightfully) overturned that attempted ban as being unconstitutional - which it was.
If you truly wish to establish strong / severe gun control measures - or even ban gun ownership outright (which will work about as well as the Prohibition Amendment did!), you HAVE to go through the process of establishing a NEW Constitutional Amendment that would - in effect - overrule the current Second Amendment (go to Wiki and read up on how Amendments are created as clearly you do not know how our government works). It is NOT a Presidential issue, it is NOT a legislative issue, it is a judicial issue which the USSC has already (recently) rule upon.
And ANY chance that you will have of getting such an Amendment passed is to FIRST establish a NEW Amendment to the Constitution that
(a) overturns "Citizens United" - as the Conservative and NRA's PACs will eat alive, with their vast sums of money and complete lack of ethics as far as lying about the facts of an issue, and
(b) develop an extremely reformed campaign financing system, with severe rules as to the amount that individual citizens can donate for political purposes (corporations of course will - under this Amendment - be unable to donate ZERO to candidates or issues) and
(c) dissolve the Senate from the legislative branch (for separation of powers and a balance of government it requires an executive branch, a judicial branch and a legislative branch... the Senate is a non representative element within our overall legislative branch: NON REPRESENTATIVE!!! When states with minor populations - like Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc. - have THE SAME NUMBER of Senators as highly populated states like New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc - exactly two each! - then that is NOT a representative form of government within our legislative branch which in today's world should be completely representative as based upon population!). The Senate was developed by the Federalist branch of our "Founding Fathers" who distrusted the "Common Man" and (they, the Federalists) felt that the "elite" should truly be those who ran this country (James Madison - even as President) was one of these until he discovered that the "elite" was not the "benevolent intelligentsia" making rules and policies to benefit the country a a whole, but in fact - yes, even back then - capitalists. Madison then did a 180-degree turn whose only goal was the profit margin and how much wealth they personally could accumulate, Madison did a 180-degree turn and in his later life was very anti-capitalist - we were NEVER established as a capitalist nation... we were established as a Democracy - and often rued having fell in with the Federalist and specifically in insisting on the formation of a Senate.... many Federalists were still pro-monarchy at heart - some wanting to see a "President for Life" whose successor would be picked by... the Senate - and note how the 2 tier legislation insisted on by the Federalists mimics the legislative branch of England which has a House of Commons" - elected by the People - and a "House of Lords" - appointed as based on the noble status... or in other words very similar to our House / Senate arrangement with a NON REPRESENTATIVE Senate!), and
(d) such Amendment would no away with judicial "life time appointments) and limit Federal judges - including those of the USSC - to a single term of TEN YEARS. The Federal judges would still be appointed by a (representative) President and confirmed by a (representative, single house) legislature by simple majority, but once appointed could only serve a maximum of ten years at ANY one level of the Federal judiciary branch.
Unfortunately (and I am a Progressive Socialist), incidents like this most frequently bring out how little "We, The People" truly know about how our government works, how the Constitution works, how legal / Constitutional systems work - and how changes can be made - and results in a flurry of meaningless petitions that are truly of a "feel good" nature - but in reality can accomplish nothing as written and are nothing more that public statements of personal agendas and NOT appropriate LEGAL advocacy measures (quote: "I don't have a gun. I don't want a gun. I don't need a gun." --- Good for you. But many people DO have guns and in fact NEED guns - more innocent people have been saved by the use of having a legal firearm to defend themselves than have been murdered by firearms, plus the actual rate of homicides by firearms has decreased b...
It is NOT some legislative action that can be passed to "modify it". In 2008 the USSC concluded a sweeping review of the Second Amendment to OUR Bill of Rights and ruled in favor of individual gun owners. The USSC Supreme Court has backed up that ruling in cases since then.
Very recently the State of Illinois attempted to ban its Concealed Carry Laws and a Federal Appeals Court (rightfully) overturned that attempted ban as being unconstitutional - which it was.
If you truly wish to establish strong / severe gun control measures - or even ban gun ownership outright (which will work about as well as the Prohibition Amendment did!), you HAVE to go through the process of establishing a NEW Constitutional Amendment that would - in effect - overrule the current Second Amendment (go to Wiki and read up on how Amendments are created as clearly you do not know how our government works). It is NOT a Presidential issue, it is NOT a legislative issue, it is a judicial issue which the USSC has already (recently) rule upon.
And ANY chance that you will have of getting such an Amendment passed is to FIRST establish a NEW Amendment to the Constitution that
(a) overturns "Citizens United" - as the Conservative and NRA's PACs will eat alive, with their vast sums of money and complete lack of ethics as far as lying about the facts of an issue, and
(b) develop an extremely reformed campaign financing system, with severe rules as to the amount that individual citizens can donate for political purposes (corporations of course will - under this Amendment - be unable to donate ZERO to candidates or issues) and
(c) dissolve the Senate from the legislative branch (for separation of powers and a balance of government it requires an executive branch, a judicial branch and a legislative branch... the Senate is a non representative element within our overall legislative branch: NON REPRESENTATIVE!!! When states with minor populations - like Wyoming, Idaho, the Dakotas, etc. - have THE SAME NUMBER of Senators as highly populated states like New York, California, Pennsylvania, etc - exactly two each! - then that is NOT a representative form of government within our legislative branch which in today's world should be completely representative as based upon population!). The Senate was developed by the Federalist branch of our "Founding Fathers" who distrusted the "Common Man" and (they, the Federalists) felt that the "elite" should truly be those who ran this country (James Madison - even as President) was one of these until he discovered that the "elite" was not the "benevolent intelligentsia" making rules and policies to benefit the country a a whole, but in fact - yes, even back then - capitalists. Madison then did a 180-degree turn whose only goal was the profit margin and how much wealth they personally could accumulate, Madison did a 180-degree turn and in his later life was very anti-capitalist - we were NEVER established as a capitalist nation... we were established as a Democracy - and often rued having fell in with the Federalist and specifically in insisting on the formation of a Senate.... many Federalists were still pro-monarchy at heart - some wanting to see a "President for Life" whose successor would be picked by... the Senate - and note how the 2 tier legislation insisted on by the Federalists mimics the legislative branch of England which has a House of Commons" - elected by the People - and a "House of Lords" - appointed as based on the noble status... or in other words very similar to our House / Senate arrangement with a NON REPRESENTATIVE Senate!), and
(d) such Amendment would no away with judicial "life time appointments) and limit Federal judges - including those of the USSC - to a single term of TEN YEARS. The Federal judges would still be appointed by a (representative) President and confirmed by a (representative, single house) legislature by simple majority, but once appointed could only serve a maximum of ten years at ANY one level of the Federal judiciary branch.
Unfortunately (and I am a Progressive Socialist), incidents like this most frequently bring out how little "We, The People" truly know about how our government works, how the Constitution works, how legal / Constitutional systems work - and how changes can be made - and results in a flurry of meaningless petitions that are truly of a "feel good" nature - but in reality can accomplish nothing as written and are nothing more that public statements of personal agendas and NOT appropriate LEGAL advocacy measures (quote: "I don't have a gun. I don't want a gun. I don't need a gun." --- Good for you. But many people DO have guns and in fact NEED guns - more innocent people have been saved by the use of having a legal firearm to defend themselves than have been murdered by firearms, plus the actual rate of homicides by firearms has decreased b...
Why is this important?
The problem with "fantasy petitions" such as the recent one "Gun Control. Now." by Staci S. (and other similar ones) and realistic proposals if concerned individuals - and their legislators - truly wish to take positive action.