28th Amendment Started: Includes "banning civilian purchases of assault weapons"

USApat

USApat

Mega-Patriot!
Exchange Privileges
Joined
May 21, 2022
Messages
2,354
Reaction score
2,624
Points
168
Obviously there will be the folks that hammer home the point that this amendment will never happen. I expect that fully.
Yes, we all know how difficult and time consuming amendments are. And, even more so, how difficult it will be to get enough states
to buy into a gun control amendment specifically. It's low hanging fruit and easy to go on and on about Republican controlled legislatures, etc..... . blah blah blah. I think most folks in this forum are already up to speed with this, or they probably wouldn't be a member ;).

But, I do have an important legal question about this that I hope will be addressed in a manner that doesn't attempt to address my question by saying "it will never happen". That is an opinion and is almost certainly a correct opinion, but will not address my question below.

Here it is:
👉 Shouldn't the 2nd Amendment be required to be repealed first, before another later proposed amendment encroaches on the wording of the 2nd Amendment?
This question has relevance to ALL amendments, not just the 2A. And that's why I'm asking it.

But specifically, the 2A clearly states, "shall not be infringed". Well the proposed 28th amendment from California would clearly "infringe" on the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

Any legal gurus or anyone that has links to constitutional legal opinions that have addressed this specific scenario where a proposed amendment to our Constitution cannot infringe on a preceding amendment? Perhaps it's addressed in the Constitution directly. I will have to go re-read my copy.

Now that I've got my question off my chest, this 28th Amendment has a snow balls chance in hell of passing! ;)



NEW: CA has officially introduced a US Constitutional Amendment to end the gun violence epidemic in this nation.

The American people want action. Congress has refused. It’s up to states to step in.

The Right to Safety will enshrine 4 gun safety freedoms:

1) Raising the age to purchase a gun to 21

2) Universal background checks

3) A waiting period for gun purchases

4) Banning civilian purchases of assault weapons
Click to expand...



View: https://twitter.com/GavinNewsom/status/1691488230980620288
 
Last edited:
The Gabbin' Nuisance Twitter thread above is worth a read. Some very good replies. I kinda like these two a lot!

F3nrqdBWoAAjDro

F3mVH1laEAAkAXP
 
FDR’s victory meant the end of Prohibition, and in February 1933 Congress adopted a resolution proposing a 21st Amendment to the Constitution that would repeal the 18th.

SO technically, yes, repeal the 2nd.

www.history.com

Prohibition: Years, Amendment and Definition - HISTORY

The Prohibition Era began in 1920 when the 18th Amendment outlawed liquor sales per the Volstead Act, but in 1932 the 21st Amendment ended Prohibition.
www.history.com www.history.com
 
This is nothing more than "presidential contender" peacocking by Gov Nuisance. He KNOWS it has less than zero chance of going forward.

To answer the question in the OP... I don't know the answer... if a contradictory amendment would have to be preceded by nullifying an existing amendment. I figure it's built in to the new amendment if it contradicts an existing amendment. The new amendment would effectively repeal the previous amendment.

But of course... Neva gonna happen! LOL! I had to throw that in there.

BTW... The "Right to Safety" amendment has even bigger problems, conceptually, than contradicting the 2A. Enumerating Safety as a "Right" would necessarily impose liability on government agencies to provide safety for every individual citizen. Of course that's quite literally impossible.

As many of us already know, there have been 5 federal court decisions (including 2 by SCOTUS) that confirmed gov't agencies (such as the police) have no legal duty to protect citizens from harm. In other words... Citizens are NOT entitled to "safety."
 
Last edited:
Racer88 said:
But of course... Neva gonna happen! LOL! I had to throw that in there.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The amount of negative comments on that Twitter thread is astounding. Newsom will run in 2024 on

A.) Reparations
B.) Gun Control
(This is why he pushed both this year.)

C.) Dominion Vote manipulation (just like he won the recall)

He is a real genuine threat IMHO. Only Michael O. will trump him in 2024.

Racer88 said:
To answer the question in the OP... I don't know the answer..
Click to expand...
Neither do I. That's why I asked it. It is a really good question to ask, because logic says you have to remove one before the other if it's in conflict. Amendments shouldn't supersede others. What is amazing is all the people in the Twitter thread stating that laws cannot infringe on the Constitution. These folks don't know the difference between a law and an amendment, let alone how each differs in how they come about.
 
USApat said:
Agreed. The amount of negative comments on that Twitter thread is astounding. Newsom will run in 2024 on

A.) Reparations
B.) Gun Control
(This is why he pushed both this year.)

C.) Dominion Vote manipulation (just like he won the recall)

He is a real genuine threat IMHO. Only Michael O. will trump him in 2024.


Neither do I. That's why I asked it. It is a really good question to ask, because logic says you have to remove one before the other if it's in conflict. Amendments shouldn't supersede others. What is amazing is all the people in the Twitter thread stating that laws cannot infringe on the Constitution. These folks don't know the difference between a law and an amendment, let alone how each differs in how they come about.
Click to expand...
Who is "Michael O.?" Can't say the last name? Or am I so out of touch that I don't recognize what is obvious to all the in-touch people? 😳
 
Racer88 said:
Who is "Michael O.?" Can't say the last name? Or am I so out of touch that I don't recognize what is obvious to all the in-touch people? 😳
Click to expand...
@NavyVette is correct. I should have said "Big Mike" instead. Certainly, you've heard that phrase???? ;)
 
If Michelle O really does have a crank, running for president will almost certainly lead to her cover being blown. No pun intended.

If it were verified Bathhouse Barry is gay and his wife is a dude, the country will be turned upside down. It means a twice-elected President intentionally misled the American public. This will literally kill the Democratic Party. They won't risk that. Big Mike aint going to run. They are making way too much money to risk becoming pariahs.
 
Racer88 said:
Yeah.. he needs to get boned, for sure! LOL! With a cactus!
Click to expand...
I think the proper etiquette is first he needs to deep throat a cactus and then get boned by it up the wazoo!🖕🖕
 
Newsom has a good backup career pretending to be a younger Michael Douglass.
 
Bongo Lewi said:
It means a twice-elected President intentionally misled the American public. This will literally kill the Democratic Party.
Click to expand...

Again, you are wrong! :D They will push for sainthood for Nobama, just like the NWO devalued the NPP by awarding it to him for doing nothing... 😠
 

Share this page

Back
Top