Govenor 'hair gel" proposes 28th Amendment.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    93,325
    113
    Merrillville
    Akshually... I would think proposing a revision to the 2nd amendment would be more appropriate than creating a new amendment that neuters an existing one. I do agree though that this would be the correct process. In my mind that's the only way to change anything in the constitution. The reason Congress does it (by passing laws) instead is that it would be too hard for them to go through the correct process and they wouldn't be able to infringe on the constitution the way they do.

    There is no procedure to amend an amendment
    Or delete one
    Adding a new amendment is the procedure
     

    ghuns

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Nov 22, 2011
    9,341
    113
    Since Newsome is admitting that a constitutional amendment is required to ban 'assault weapons', wouldn't it mean he's admitting that his state's ban on them is unconstitutional?


    what-confused.gif
     

    miguel

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    Oct 24, 2008
    6,621
    113
    16T
    Sell them to Mexico instead. But only after creating a new port in Oregon or Washington to replace the ports in CA.
    Then sell CA water at insane rates since most of the water for southern CA comes from Nevada. LOL
    That's a reasonable approach, but I'm selling Oregon and Washington state in the yet to be announced 29th...but only after GroßIdaho becomes a reality.
     
    Top Bottom