ArtsAutosBooksBusinessEducationEntertainmentFamilyFashionFoodGamesGenderHealthHolidaysHomeHubPagesPersonal FinancePetsPoliticsReligionSportsTechnologyTravel
  • »
  • Politics and Social Issues»
  • United States Politics

Another attack or at least a proposal to impact our 2nd amendment rights

Updated on February 28, 2015

Gun control seems to be an objective of this administration and some members of Congress. The latest effort to impact our rights under the 2nd amendment to the Constitution is an effort to restrict access to some ammunition. Failure to take away our right to bear arms as the Constitution identifies the effort now is bent on restricting access to ammunition. Owning a firearm and having the ammunition to use it go hand in hand. How could you utilize your right to own a firearm if you did not have the opportunity or access to the ammunition for it?

Changing the rules by the ATF which is being proposed and probably will go into effect does not change the law passed by Congress. The only legal process for changing the content of legislation is through Congress. Here again this example is executive departments and agencies disregarding the content and requirements of laws they are sworn to enforce. I would hope that from what it appears the rule would ban the manufacture, import, distribute or sell the type of ammunition which is the focus of his proposed rule now being considered for implementation. It is hoped the restriction of manufacturing certain ammunition that manufacturers would disregard or at least fight this new rule through our judicial system if it goes into effect. Any entity of government especially the executive department cannot change the law only enforce it.

Rewriting laws or ignoring them by yet another department of the executive branch are attempting to impact our right to bear arms. Granted there are issues with certain types of ammunition but any ammunition can be used for illegal purposes and it is not the fault of law-abiding citizens when this takes place. Citizens regardless of the law should not be punished for the actions of others. Our world is a dangerous place today now more than ever and law-abiding citizens need to have the capability to protect themselves and their families.

It is anticipated that battle lines will be drawn for this latest attempt by government to restrict our rights under the 2nd amendment to the Constitution. It is also know that efforts to make changes in this area by the executive branch have been defeated through the legislative process, the courts and the will of the majority. In one bright spot there is an upcoming election and this attack on our second amendment rights and the response from Congress will not go unnoticed by voters and they will make their voices heard in their votes.

The legislative process takes a number of votes for any legislation to be presented to the President for signature. Individuals who ignore this latest attempt to curtail yet another right we have will have to answer to their constituents. There are several organizations involved with our right to bear arms and they have constantly been fighting attempts make it harder for individuals to protect themselves and their families.

In addition it must also be remembered that those now hold positions in the executive departments can be replace with a new administration. In addition executive orders are technology null and void when the President who issued them leaves office. It has been a matter of custom that executive orders are revoked by a new President especially ones with which he disagrees. It is hoped that actions such as the current proposal associated with the 2nd amendment if it goes into effect will be soundly rejected by the next administration if not by the current Congress.


    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    • Dennis AuBuchon profile image

      Dennis AuBuchon 2 years ago

      Larry Wall

      I always welcome comments on my hub and whether we disagree or not it has no impact on whether we remain hub friends. Sometimes comments presents a different perspective on an issue and this is how we learn.

    • profile image

      Larry Wall 2 years ago


      Virtually every amendment in the bill of rights has been attacked and modified. As an old reporter, the First Amendment is the most important. If gives you the right to publicly voice your opinion and write your views in a public forum.

      I understand your views. But are we going to get to the point that a grenade launcher, or a bazooka, machine gun, or bullets that can six inches of steel will be legal weapons. I will admit, the bullets may not exist but they could.

      Defending your home and family, hunting, target practice do not bother me. But should a blind person own a gun. A state may pass a law, but the amendment says Congress shall pass no law restricting the right to bear arms.

      I was in a discussion of a Hub and noted that in a broad sense the right to bear arms, may not guarantee the right to fire the weapon. We all know that was not the intent. But, the right mix on the Supreme Court could reach that conclusion.

      Obviously, I favor some type of gun control. My wife, a retired teacher had a former student kill in his back yard by a bullet that had been fired in he air several blocks away fell and hit the center of his head. The gun was fired in celebration of the Fourth of July. The person firing it was never identified and is probably walking the streets today. I think few criminals wear clothing that requires the use of armor piercing bullets. Congress could pass a law about that.We have exchanged many comments over the years and I believe you would act responsibly. Unfortunately, I cannot say that about all people who have objected to my voicing my views as granted by the first amendment.

      For the record under the "freedom of speech, press and and assembly" there are restrictions I must follow. I cannot yell "fire" in a bilding where there are no people and no fire. I cannot arrange to have a meeting in your yard without your permission and I need a permit to have a meeting or rally in a public place. I cannot deliberately libel or slander anyone and my right (remember I am retired) to protectsorces as its limitations. The founding fathers wrote a great document. However, the interpretation of that document must be frequently examined and change so that we can promote the general welfare and provide for the common good. We disagree. I hope we can remain Hub friends and respect the right for each of us to offer our views.