{"id":510,"date":"2016-10-25T16:04:17","date_gmt":"2016-10-25T16:04:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/?p=510"},"modified":"2016-10-25T16:04:17","modified_gmt":"2016-10-25T16:04:17","slug":"will-politicians-succeed-in-unilaterally-amending-a-perception-of-the-second-amendment","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/2016\/10\/25\/will-politicians-succeed-in-unilaterally-amending-a-perception-of-the-second-amendment\/","title":{"rendered":"Will politicians succeed in unilaterally amending [a perception of] the Second Amendment?"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"labovitz\"<\/a>

By Irving Labovitz, J.D.<\/p><\/div>\n

In high school civics class most Americans learn that Article V of the United States Constitution permits its amendment only after the laborious process of obtaining consent of 2\/3 of both houses of Congress and then also succeeding in the torturous process of thereafter securing approbation by 2\/3 of the states\u2026a lengthy and formidable task, as had been fully intended by our Founding Fathers.<\/p>\n

During the current presidential election cycle, and to the date of this modest essay as we approach election day, a singular accusation, inter alia, continues to enjoy a modicum of political \u201ctraction\u201d, namely, that an opposing candidate if elected would somehow enjoy the capacity to unilaterally \u201ctake away your Second Amendment rights\u201d, either by direct executive action, or by appointing Supreme Court justices who would interpret its meaning to constrict the otherwise unfettered right of citizens to carry arms outside their homes without measurable constraint.<\/p>\n

As to the former, such a postulate totally ignores the Constitutional reality of Article V.\u00a0 Regarding the latter, a modicum of legal history is in order. Until 2008, the Supreme Court had uniformly interpreted Amendment II to allow states and municipalities to impose reasonable constraints on gun ownership whether at home or in the public domain.\u00a0 However, in that year a Supreme Court decision commonly known as Heller, first interpreted Amendment II to permit retention of firearms at home for self-protection, without restraint or qualification.\u00a0 Moreover, from 1994 to 2004 Congress also was successful in resisting Constitutional challenges to its legislation banning possession of assault-type weapons. This law thereafter expired by its terms and was never extended.<\/p>\n

Since 2008, proponents of expanded gun rights have sought to overturn multiple state and local laws curbing both the carrying of weapons outside the home as well as the kinds of weapons to be allowed.\u00a0 Both trial, as well as appellate courts construing the Constitutionality of such circumscriptions, have overwhelmingly found them to be constitutionally compatible with Amendment II, and that Heller remains limited to only home possession of firearms for self defense.\u00a0 Moreover, in multiple attempts to seek Supreme Court review of these limiting decisions, the Court has declined to do so in all instances.<\/p>\n

Assuredly, one may likely anticipate a future appellate decision that indeed grants the \u201cwish list\u201d of the NRA, wholly or in part.\u00a0 So doing would give rise to a Constitutional controversy likely sufficient to warrant interjection and resolution by the Supreme Court\u2026but do not anticipate that a successful victor in the race for the presidency next month having claimed an ability to \u201cpreserve your Constitutional rights\u201d will be able to individually assure other than an altered Constitutionally flawed perception of Amendment II.<\/p>\n

Irving Labovitz, J.D. is currently teaching “OBJECTION! Current, Contentious and Confusing Legal Battles” on Thursdays-Oct, 13, 20, 27; Nov. 3, 10, 17; Dec. 1, 8; No class on Nov. 24. The class starts at 12 p.m.\u00a0<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In high school civics class most Americans learn that Article V of the United States Constitution permits its amendment only after the laborious process of obtaining consent of 2\/3 of both houses of Congress and then also succeeding in the…<\/span><\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1679,"featured_media":88,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/510"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1679"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=510"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/510\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":512,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/510\/revisions\/512"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/88"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=510"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=510"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/wordpress.fau.edu\/lifelongexchange\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=510"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}