AHC: Repeal the 2nd ammendment

With A POD from anytime from 1788 to the present how can the 2nd amendment have been repealed from the US constitution?
 
Only by destruction of the Constitution, such as a coup. A surviving constitution+ no 2nd Amendment is ASB.
 
The Second Amendment is ratified specifying the right of States to secede in 1791 to appease some anti-Federal sentiments. At some point after a failed attempt to withdraw from the Union, the Amendment is repealed.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
For most of American history, it was seen as a human right to be able to own a weapon, on par with freedom of religion.

A good indication of this is how the restrictive Black Codes passed in 1865 by Southern States, which was before Reconstruction was put into action, and therefore some of the most racist and right depriving laws in American history, did not go far enough to ban Black people from owning guns. Despite everything in those Codes, the right to bear arms was not infringed upon, even on former slave populations.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would be unheard of, considered tyrannical and an abomination, not to mention destructive for people who needed them to survive.

Your best bet to get this to occur is in the last 20 years. Perhaps Right Wing Militia groups in the 90s under Clinton start doing mass shootings on the scale of hundreds of people killed with guns that were legal rather than illegal. That is the only way I can see something like this having a chance.
 
Strict constitionalists demand that all passed bills need to be engrained into the Constitution to be valid. The role of the Constitution is thus devaluaized and sometime later it is eventually repaled without much fanfare
 
For most of American history, it was seen as a human right to be able to own a weapon, on par with freedom of religion.

A good indication of this is how the restrictive Black Codes passed in 1865 by Southern States, which was before Reconstruction was put into action, and therefore some of the most racist and right depriving laws in American history, did not go far enough to ban Black people from owning guns. Despite everything in those Codes, the right to bear arms was not infringed upon, even on former slave populations.

Repealing the 2nd Amendment would be unheard of, considered tyrannical and an abomination, not to mention destructive for people who needed them to survive.

Your best bet to get this to occur is in the last 20 years. Perhaps Right Wing Militia groups in the 90s under Clinton start doing mass shootings on the scale of hundreds of people killed with guns that were legal rather than illegal. That is the only way I can see something like this having a chance.

Does repealing the 2nd amendment mean actually banning all weapon ownership though?

There are numerous countries without a constitutional right to own arms where arms can be purchased albeit with some restrictions often.

There are some groups who are working to repeal the 2nd amendment now but not necessarily trying to ban or confiscate all guns but mainly to proceed with gun legislation less impeded by the 2nd amendment.
 

TinyTartar

Banned
Does repealing the 2nd amendment mean actually banning all weapon ownership though?

There are numerous countries without a constitutional right to own arms where arms can be purchased albeit with some restrictions often.

There are some groups who are working to repeal the 2nd amendment now but not necessarily trying to ban or confiscate all guns but mainly to proceed with gun legislation less impeded by the 2nd amendment.

I can't see why the 2nd Amendment would be repealed without having some kind of attempt at gun grabbing. Why would they want or need to do it?

I suppose if the 2nd Amendment had some other right in it that was considered bad later on, like for example, the right to form a lynch mob, or the right to secede from the Union, than maybe there is something to it.

But repealing the 2nd amendment yet doing nothing about gun ownership seems kind of dumb to me.
 
I can't see why the 2nd Amendment would be repealed without having some kind of attempt at gun grabbing. Why would they want or need to do it?

I suppose if the 2nd Amendment had some other right in it that was considered bad later on, like for example, the right to form a lynch mob, or the right to secede from the Union, than maybe there is something to it.

But repealing the 2nd amendment yet doing nothing about gun ownership seems kind of dumb to me.

I think it would be to give the government perhaps the leeway to take potential action on gun ownership. Perhaps at certain times it would be needed to restrict access to guns, civil/political unrest, massive crime wave etc. not necessarily for all the time though.
 
Before *Heller* (which, let us remember, was only a 5-4 decision) this would be unlikely because gun-control proponents insisted that, rightly interpreted, the Second Amendment was no obstacle to laws limiting or even outlawing individual ownership of firearms; it only was designed to prevent Congress from interfering with state militias, etc. To push for repeal would be an admission that their opponents were right about the meaning of the Amendment.

After *Heller* there might have been a stronger case for repeal but it was politically impossible; even if you could get the majority of the American people to agree, you certainly couldn't get thirty-eight states (many of them largely rural) to go along.
 
At the time of the Revolution, and the subsequent Constitution, the "militia" was legally all adult free males. There were regulations stating that all enrolled males had to have certain arms and equipment, muster every so often, be available for service of certain duration and location and so forth. So, at that time, a "well regulated militia" basically meant all free males, all of whom should be armed and ready. The fact that there were exemptions from militia service, and these regulations were not vigorously enforced does not mean this was no the "plan".

There is no question that the intent was to have all free males armed to be ready to serve in defense in the militia. Given this intent, and the general feeling in the USA about the need to be armed to defend liberty (at the time) as well as the idea of a small army but lots of militia/volunteers in time of war getting rid of 2nd amendment before recent times ASB.
 
I just knew it. This topic *always* brings out debates about what was the "true" original meaning of the Second Amendment, with both sides saying that the historical evidence is "clear" on their side.

One could say a great deal about this debate. Personally, I agree with Sanford Levnson on *Heller*--that both sides simply refuse to recognize the complexity of the historical record. (Well, duh--they are lawyers, not historians!)
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/some-preliminary-reflections-on-heller.html

But all that is really not relevant here. *Whatever* the original meaning of the Second Amendment, there was never any chance of it being repealed--period.
 
David..I agree this is complex. FWIW I'm getting a history Ph.D., military history in particular. So history of colonial militias from early settlements in N. America something I am familiar with. In any case, while I can see restrictions more than today/OTL on ownership, I can't see the 2nd amendment being voted out or restrictions like UK/Australia, other countries.
 
I don't know about repealing it, but you could restrict how far the legislation actually reaches. Personally I think abiding by a constitution written over two hundred years ago is madness in and of itself, but I wonder - if you can somehow get the union to fall apart not long after it is formed, before the Louisiana Purchase but after the 1783 Treaty of Paris (so you've got a 20 year window basically) maybe the whole constitution would be restricted to whatever Union is left. The new states that emerge would have their own constitutions, so in that case you can at least take the second ammendment away from *some* parts of OTL's USA.

Normally my gut reaction on a thread like this would be to say something like, "Well, if there's a bad enough individual gun-crime to get people outraged enough to do something about it..." but since that's happened multiple times with no result, I'd be inclined to call the whole idea ASB as well. Unless a mass-shooting happens early on enough in the US's history to actually have an impact.

Another potential idea could be in the OTL civil war. If the CSA succeeds in seceding (somehow) then the Union might be dealt enough blows to rethink its founding document. Or it could be made worse, because, you know, now it's the Confederates they have to worry about.
 
First time post here.

How about the idea that states/federal government institute a number of laws early (1790'sish) requiring militia service (to fulfill the "well regulated militia" portion of the 2nd). Citizens feel this is an imposition on their personal liberty and thus move for repeal? Obviously not likely during anytime period with a "frontier mentality" but certainly after Westward Expansion the need for compulsory drill is greatly reduced.
 
ASB.



“Rightly interpreted”, indeed. :rolleyes:

I am taking no position on the "individual right" versus "collective right" interpretation of the Second Amendment. All I am saying is that gun control advocates *believed* (rightly or wrongly) in the latter interpretation and that therefore *until it was rejected by the federal courts* had no incentive to seek the repeal of the Second Amendment--which of course they had (and have) no chance of succeeding in doing anyway. The first federal case that interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was *United States v. Emerson*, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). Even then some other circuits disagreed, and the matter was not resolved by the Supreme Court until *Heller.* As long as they were winning in the federal courts, as they seemed to be doing before 2001, there was no incentive for gun control advocates to seek the repeal of the Second Amendment.

The sole question the original post asked was whether there was any chance of the Second Amendment being repealed, and the answer is clearly no, regardless of one's views on how the Amendment should be interpreted.
 
AFAIK, if the 2nd Amendment was 'repealed' (which could only be done by another Amendment), it wouldn't mean 'all guns are banned'... it would mean that gun control would devolve to the state governments, and whatever they choose to do...
 
I am taking no position

I know. I’m just laughing at the thought that they could ever take that position. It’s borne of sheer linguistic ignorance.

The first federal case that interpreted the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right was *United States v. Emerson*, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). Even then some other circuits disagreed, and the matter was not resolved by the Supreme Court until *Heller.* As long as they were winning in the federal courts, as they seemed to be doing before 2001, there was no incentive for gun control advocates to seek the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Excellent summary. Hopefully vBulletin allows the thumbs up emoji, because it sure as heck doesn’t allow for upside down exclamation marks.
 
Top