Step by step legal guide on how to ban all firearms in the United States

[MohRokTah]

1) Write up an amendment to the constitution. Basically, all it needs to say is this:

Section 1. The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of firearms, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.

Section 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven years from the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.

2) Convince 290 members of the House of Representatives that amendment should be passed.

3) Convince 67 members of the Senate that amendment should be passed.

3.5) Barring being capable of both 2) and 3), convince 34 state legislatures to pass identical legislation calling for an Article V Constitutional Convention for the purposes of considering that amendment, then have 26 voting delegations vote to pass it.

4) Upon completion of 2) & 3) OR 3.5), convince 38 state legislatures to ratify that amendment.

5) Then just get all 50 states to make all firearms illegal.

Best get started right away and good luck!

[Duckhunter935]

1. Then confiscate some 300 million firearms

Quite an easy thing

[MohRokTah]

2. I was just giving the steps required to ban them all.

I wasn't getting into the logistics of enforcement.

Attempting to enforce the ban would make enforcement of the 18th amendment and the ensuing Volstead Act seem like a piece of cake with no problems whatsoever.

[Duckhunter935]

3. I understand

[JaneyVee]

20. Nah, just tax bullets $250 each.

Keep the guns.

[TeddyR]

26. You'd actually have to make gun ownership illegal

Or this is unconstitutional. Unless you think it is ok to tax printers ink, or make everyone pay $250 before they vote, or make every person who wants an abortion pay a $250 tax first.

[scscholar]

31. Not just ink! Electrons too given the hate breitbart.com is spewing

That should be illegal.

[roamer65]

4. Add to the list "Put down the second Civil War".

As much as I favor gun more stringent gun regulation, an attempt to repeal one of the original Bill of Rights amendments would rip this country to shreds.

[MohRokTah]

7. I was staying away from enforcement issues.

Just the facts on what it takes for the ban being called for here on DU.

I figured that alone would make any thinking person back off on such a thing and work towards common sense regulation of firearms as allowed by both the constitution and the Heller decision.

[roamer65]

14. People don't realize it, MohRokTah...

but it would be perfectly constitutional to issue a firearm aquisition and ammunition purchase license in the United States. As long as it doesn't violate the right of ownership by law-abiding people, it would be upheld as constitutional.

[MohRokTah]

22. I'm not so sure.

In Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner 460 U.S. 575 (1983) the SCOTUS ruled a special use tax on ink and paper used by the media was unconstitutional as it specifically targeted the right to freedom of the press.

If the licensing was free, no such condition would exist and it might withstand a constitutionality test. It would definitely survive if done state by state and functioned identically to the Illinois FOID card requirement, but I doubt it could at the federal level.

[DonP]

5. Way, way too much work involved in that approach

Most of the control minded know they will never get that done, the political will is just not there, that's why they never follow through when they are asked if they are getting started on repeal.

Besides, it would mean getting off the couch, away from the keyboard and spending their own time and money. Not gonna happen and in 2 decades on DU not one, of even the most "outspoken" ones, has started to draft a petition. All talk, no activity. Much better to just use the excuse that the NRA has paid everyone off, ignoring the $50 million plus that Bloomberg has pissed away with little to show for it and even with "90% of the country" agreeing with them.

Much easier to keep venting and ranting pointlessly online and call other people; ammosexuals, gun humpers, right wing NRA stooges, et. al.

Then, somewhere in the same thread, they usually demand that the same "gun humpers" tell them what detail is needed to write an effective gun ban law.

So instead of the real world hard work to get it repealed or amended, they always fall back on the idea that magically SCOTUS will just reverse both Heller and McDonald the first chance they get. Coincidentally, that approach also requires no effort or money from them.

It'll happen, in much the same way this "conservative court" has reversed Roe v. Wade and the Affordable Care Act.

[TeddyR]

27. The Supreme Court could reverse Heller tomorrow

And we'd still have the exact same gun laws we have today. Except perhaps in DC, which would likely reinstate its pointless handgun ban, all while the district bleeds from murders and other violent crimes (most dangerous city in the US). Congress isn't going to do anything on this issue, and only a small handful of states could actually enact more stringent gun control.

[DonP]

34. I know, it's just another excuse for them

I know, they just use it as an excuse for not doing anything in the real world.

Same thing with the; "NRA buys off Congress" excuse.

Bloomberg put over $50 million into the last round of elections, way more than the NRA and that way they don't have to get out their checkbooks.

Just one excuse after another, as long as they don't have to actually do anything but vent online.

[Kang Colby]

6. Excellent post. Just the facts. n/t

[Matrosov]

8. As long as too many progressives remain happily ignorant

about firearm basics, there likely won't even be any more 'common sense' gun control at the federal level.

There needs to be more support from gun owners and people who are on the fence on the subject, but shouting 'I don't care about the details, just ban everything' or cracking jokes about how anyone with even a bit of firearm knowledge is a 'gun humper' isn't going to get that done. Even I am starting to get annoyed, after I've said countless times I reckon civilian access to firearms is what allows criminals to get their guns, and restricting that access is probably the best way to move forward, but then I've gotten accused of posting 'right-wing talking points' and being into 'gun porn' for explaining things like that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did nothing to decrease the effectiveness of AR15s that were still being sold between 1994 and 2004.

People generally like to educate themselves on subjects they want to argue, but apparently the exact opposite is true for many liberals when it comes to firearms and gun control.

[baldguy]

9. Step 1: Public financing of elections.

The rest would follow.

[MohRokTah]

12. But then you run countr to the first amendment.

[baldguy]

13. Money is not speech.

Giving disproportionate power to the wealthy simply because they are wealthy is a RW idea.

[MohRokTah]

16. Not officially, but it is essentially

See Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).

What you propose is unconstitutional, and Justices of the Supreme Court do not overturn precedence willy nilly. A proper case must be brought forth and a compelling argument based upon the constitution, not how somebody feels about it, must be presented. If you can convince a majority to overturn Citizens United, you could be right.The bar you have to pass is nearly as high as it would be to amend the constitution and you will meet extreme opposition if you attempt to alter the first amendment. I know I oppose all efforts to amend the constitution over Citizens United because I am not prepared to accept an altered first amendment.

As it stands now, what you propose is unconstitutional. Your best bet to change that is to repeal the first amendment.

Good luck with that.

[baldguy]

17. Do you support the biggest RW threat to free speech & democracy this country has faced?

That's what Citizens United is.

[MohRokTah]

18. I disagree with the ruling, but it IS the ruling.

It's not going to be overturned, at least not any time soon. Certainly not within the next decade.

[baldguy]

25. That's a cop-out.

[MohRokTah]

28. No. That's the law. eom

[Egnever]

35. I am not so sure of that

The balance of the court could shift quite a bit in the next few years. It was a 5-4 decision no exactly a slam dunk and a very unpopular decision at that.

The idea it is written in stone is not a strong position IMHO.

[MohRokTah]

36. Overturning stare decisis is a high hurdle.

First, you need to get a law passed that would require that Citizens United be overturned in order to be upheld.

That's a MASSIVELY TALL hurdle to leap.

Then, you have to work that case through the entire system.

Then, you would even need the SCOTUS to accept the case which is rare when all lower courts would have to overturn the law based upon stare decisis.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be. Overturning any SCOTUS precedent takes at least a decade before it can happen. Look at how long it took to overturn other decisions in history,

[underpants]

10. No hunting?

[Calculating]

11. Simply impossible

Partial gun bans such as "no assault weapons" are really all that could ever be achieved. Trying to take away everybody's standard revolvers, hunting guns and shotguns would simply be futile.

[hunter]

15. Meh. I prefer community pressure.

BOO!

You never know when I'll be mocking gun fetishes.

Piss on guns.

[JaneyVee]

19. Just make each bullet $5000.

[MohRokTah]

21. Unconstitutional.

Taxing something so much it becomes unaffordable when the right to own it is guaranteed in the constitution is unconstitutional.

It would be like making internet access cost $50,000/month. Any governmental body attempting to do that would be ruled unconstitutional so fast it would make your head spin.

In fact, just such a case was brought before the SCOTUS in 1983 when an unconstitutional tax on ink paper was ruled to violate the constitution in Minneapolis Star v. Minnesota Commissioner 460 U.S. 575 (1983).

Using taxes to halt the ability to exercise a freedom guaranteed under the constitution fails the precedence test.

[treestar]

23. It's possible

They had to do the same thing to get the other amendments. Could have said the same to those who wanted women to be able to vote when the idea was first floated.

[MohRokTah]

24. 27 Amendments to the Constitution have been ratified.

The first ten were a gimme as a condition for certain states to ratify the constitution itself.

That means that it has only happened 17 time in 227 years.

On top of that, 3 were ratified in the aftermath of the American Civil War where the states that had previously been in rebellion had governments comprised of those who had not risen in rebellion. Georgia, for example, was the state that put ratification of the 13th amendment over the required number. The 13th amendment abolished slavery and without the complete alteration of the Georgia State Government, it would have never ratified that amendment.

So that's 14 amendments in 227 years that went through a full blown process.

That's a high hurdle. Try getting Georgia to ratify an amendment repealing the second amendment today and see what happens. In fact, you will need to convince 38 total states to ratify. 13 states is all that are required to block any amendment passed by the Houses of Congress. I can think of at least 20 that would block any attempt at repealing the 2nd amendment. I don't see that changing any time soon.

[cosmicone]

29. A much easier way ....

Replace Scalia with a liberal and re-interpret the second amendment which states:

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.

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State is a predicate --- and they are talking about the security of a state - not of people and only in the context of a "well-regulated militia."

The supreme court can rule on a case setting a precedent that defines the well-regulated militia as:

1. Having no less than 1,000 and no more than 10,000 members
2. Members according to #1 who are screened for physical fitness, mental fitness, acumen in operating firearms, lack of criminal history and regular training.
3. Proficiency tests every year to maintain membership,
4. Any other conditions as may be required from time to time by laws of a state or territory.

That solves the problem. NRA can work on forming these "well-regulated" militias and make money from background checks and annual training.

[MohRokTah]

30. The only problem is most Justices, especially on the liberal side, are loathe to alter stare decisis

There would have to be one hell of a constitutional argument to overturn Heller. Justices weigh stare decisis heavily in any decision.

Possible, but not very likely.

Better bet is to take the long game approach and slowly pile up regulations.

[cosmicone]

33. They can both run contemporaneously

one doesn't exclude the other.

[TeddyR]

32. You still have to pass laws that actually impact firearm ownership

And will have to do so at the federal level since many state constitutions protect private ownership of firearms. Do you really think Georgia, Idaho, Texas, North Dakota, etc., etc. are going to pass laws that infringe on the right to keep and bear arms?