My version of how the second amendment.

[Beretta92FSLady]

"10 USC 311"

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

This is CURRENT U.S. federal law, it's right here, black-and-white

I was sweating-it for a moment there, until I reade Males. Good thing I'm excluded. Good luck fellas.

Unorganized Militia are not the Militia referenced in the Second Amendment. They would be the militia, not the Militia.--as lettered within the Second Amendment.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I was sweating-it for a moment there, until I reade Males. Good thing I'm excluded. Good luck fellas.

Unorganized Militia are not the Militia referenced in the Second Amendment. They would be the militia, not the Militia.--as lettered within the Second Amendment.

And considering that the organized militia is lettered the same way in the context of the USC cite, then that means the second amendment can't apply anywhere. OR the case of the letter is really irrelevant

 

[hammer6]

I wrote this several years ago when I working one Sunday at the lab (it was a slow day).

Congress, nor any state, nor any political sub division within a state shall make no law that in any way, abridges, restricts, infringes or denies the absolute

kinda like a double negative... should be: "Congress, OR any state, OR any political.....shall make no law..."


unless you want to put "Neither" before "Congress".

 

[hammer6]

Constructive criticism, not insulting: There are some grammatical issues with wording of your text. There are several double negatives that would essentially negate the intent of some of the passages. Example:

"No Individual who..., shall never be required..." No individual shall never be required means that all individual SHALL be required to at least at some point in the future.

The "nor" qualifiers is also incorrect. Essentially you are excluding from the list when you say nor. The lines should read "Congres, any state, or any further subdivision of government within a state shall not..."

Using the term "political" is less accurate than using the term government. Politics is not always and exclusively associated with governments.

Also keep in mind as you think about this. Laws do not grant rights. They remove rights. So any law written either expressly takes rights away or it prevents the taking away of rights. IT would be useful to express that in the statement. IE, "As it is the natural right of all US citizens to keep...."

Minor critiques. Not intended to offend, just trying to be constructive. I tend to do similar things when I get bored.

oh...i didn't read this first...but you and i apparently are grammar scholars. lol or is that me and you? lol

 

[gunslinger493]

This is my second attempt:

The opening declares it to be a natural right
As it is the natural right of the individual to keep and bear arms, Congress or any State or any political sub division with a State shall make no law:

This paragraph recognizes the right of the individual to keep an bear arms and spells it out.
-- That in any way, abridges, restricts, infringes or denies the absolute right of the individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed about their person, arms or components of arms and ammunition, in any all and all areas of the nation.

This paragraph eliminates any possible permitting schemes and says permission to exercise that right can not be required
-- That requires any Individual who is not lawfully incarcerated, who is of 18 years or older in age to seek permission, permit or license, from any authority, to acquire lawfully, keep and carry either openly or concealed, arms or components of arms and ammunition in any all and all areas of the nation, for the defense of the individual, property and the defense of the state.

This paragraph eliminates any registration schemes
-- That requires arms or components of arms and ammunition, or record of any lawful sale or the possession thereof, to be registered or recorded with any authority.

This paragraph prevents guns and ammunition from being taxed so that they prohibitively expensive.
-- That imposes any special or selective, tax or regulation on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition.

This paragraph prevents gun manufacturers from being sued by the misuse of their products by criminals
-- That places liability on any individual, corporation or other entity engaged in the manufacturing, distribution and sale of arms or components of arms and ammunition for the misuse of arms or components of arms and ammunition, used by another individual in any act.

As with my first attempt, I wanted to spell it out in no uncertain terms that could be twisted or misused. I am a scientist and I deal with absolute facts all the time.
I wanted no misinterpretation, either deliberate or not. I wanted to go beyond 'shall not be infringed'

 

[ATM]

...I wanted to go beyond 'shall not be infringed'

You could have a lawyer polish it and add 5000 more words to say it in 20 different ways, but IMO none of that would serve to take it "beyond" the simple yet concrete original.

As an exercise in outlining and defining the vast reach of the simply stated restriction, I do appreciate your approach to the matter.

 

[Haz.]

Here is an example of the type mumbo jumbo speak without thinking of legal eagles. These are the people your forfathers were protecting you from when they added the 2nd! to your constitution.

> ATTORNEY: What was the first thing your husband said to you that morning?
> WITNESS: He said, “Where am I, Cathy?”
> ATTORNEY: And why did that upset you?
> WITNESS: My name is Susan!
____________ _________ _________ _________ _____

> ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
> WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
> ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
> WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
> ATTORNEY: This myasthenia gravis, does it affect your memory at all?
> WITNESS: Yes.
> ATTORNEY: And in what ways does it affect your memory?
> WITNESS: I forget.
> ATTORNEY: You forget? Can you give us an example of something you forgot?
____________ _________ _________ _________
> ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn’t it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he
> doesn’t know about it until the next morning?
> WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
____________ _________ _________ ______

> ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the twenty-year- old, how old is he?
> WITNESS: He’s twenty, much like your IQ.
____________ _________ _________ _________

> ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
> WITNESS: Are you ******** me?
____________ _________ _________ _________ __

> ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
> WITNESS: Yes.
> ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
> WITNESS: Getting laid
____________ _________ _________ _________ _____

> ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
> WITNESS: Yes.
> ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
> WITNESS: None.
> ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
> WITNESS: Your Honor, I think I need a different attorney. Can I get a new
> attorney?
____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
> ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
> WITNESS: By death.
> ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
> WITNESS: Take a guess.
____________ _________ _________ _________ ____ _
> ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
> WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
> ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
> WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I’m going with male.
____________ _________ _________ _______
> ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition
> notice which I sent to your attorney?
> WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
____________ _________ _________ ________
> ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead
> people?
> WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
____________ _________ _________ _________
> ATTORNEY: ALL your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you go to?
> WITNESS: Oral.
____________ _________ _________ _________ __
> ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
> WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 p.m.
> ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
> WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
____________ _________ _________ _________ _____
> ATTORNEY: Are you qualified to give a urine sample?
> WITNESS: Are you qualified to ask that question?
____________ _________ _________ ________
> And the best for last:
>
> ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a
> pulse?
> WITNESS: No.
> ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
> WITNESS: No.
> ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
> WITNESS: No.
> ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began
> the autopsy?
> WITNESS: No.
> ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
> WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
> ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
> WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing
> law.

 

[Ballenxj]

Here is an example of the type mumbo jumbo speak without thinking of legal eagles. These are the people your forfathers were protecting you from when they added the 2nd! to your constitution.

That about sums it up. Entertaining too.
-Bruce

 

[Haz.]

That about sums it up. Entertaining too.
-Bruce

Thanks Bruce.

Mort lawers are hopeless as far as I am conserned. I never said all, just most!

I was once waiting to be called to appear in court and give evidence, sitting along side my wife who came to support me, when my barrister sent out my solicitor who asked me to move away so I could not hear what he was about to ask my wife. I moved away and so it went.

It was not until after the case was over that my wife was able to tell me what had transpired between her and my scolicitor and my barrister.

My solicitor, forgetfully, had left certain crucial documents which totally and compleatly cleared me of any wrong doing at his office and my barrister, giving this evidence in court at that very time needed them right away. My solicitor asked my wife first of all if I had copies of these documents? (naturally she could not ask me as I was not supposed to hear the conversation they were having), and when she answered, she did not know if I had copies, then he asked if anyone was at home who could bring them to court ASAP?

Like who, if they even were at home could bring documents no one knew If I even had copies of, and where they might be? If I had copies of documents no one knew about and if they were in my safe, no one would have access to them even if they knew what they were?

And this was one of the top legal companies in Aus. at the time!

These are the type of people who tinker with, and make laws affecting your's and my rights in this world!