All Inclusive Amendment: Fill & Download for Free

The right to keep and bear arms (often referred to as the right to bear arms) is the people's right to possess weapons (arms) for their own defense.Only few countries recognize people's right to keep and bear arms and protect it on statutory level, and even fewer protect the right on constitutional level.The Bill of Rights 1689 allowed Protestant citizens of England to "have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law" and restricted the ability of the English Crown to have a standing army or to interfere with Protestants' right to bear arms "when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law" and established that Parliament, not the Crown, could regulate the right to bear arms.Sir William Blackstone wrote in the 18th century that the right to have arms was auxiliary to the "natural right of resistance and self-preservation" subject to suitability and allowance by law.The term arms as used in the 1600s, the term refers to the process of equipping for war. It is commonly used as a synonym for weapon. Inclusion of this right in a written constitution is uncommon. In 1875, 17 percent of constitutions included a right to bear arms. Since the early twentieth century, "the proportion has been less than 9 percent and falling".In their historical survey and comparative analysis of constitutions dating back to 1789, Tom Ginsburg and colleagues "identified only 15 constitutions (in nine countries) that had ever included an explicit right to bear arms. Almost all of these constitutions have been in Latin America, and most were from the 19th century".Generally, where modern constitutions refer to arms at all, the purpose is "to allow the government to regulate their use or to compel military service, not to provide a right to bear them”. Constitutions which historically guaranteed a right to bear arms are those of Bolivia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Liberia, Mexico, Nicaragua and the United States of America.Nearly all of the Latin American examples were modelled on that of the United States.At present, out of the world’s nearly 200 constitutions, three still include a right to bear arms: Guatemala, Mexico, and the United States; of these three, only the last does not include explicit restrictive conditions.The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the individual right to keep and bear armsIt was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed for the first time that the right belongs to individuals, for self-defense in the home, while also including, as dicta, that the right is not unlimited and does not preclude the existence of certain long-standing prohibitions such as those forbidding "the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill" or restrictions on "the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons."Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - WikipediaIn 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (07-290). The plaintiff in Heller challenged the constitutionality of the Washington D.C. handgun ban, a statute that had stood for 32 years. Many considered the statute the most stringent in the nation. In a 5-4 decision, the Court, meticulously detailing the history and tradition of the Second Amendment at the time of the Constitutional Convention, proclaimed that the Second Amendment established an individual right for U.S. citizens to possess firearms and struck down the D.C. handgun ban as violative of that right.Second AmendmentLower courts have upheld many gun laws around the country since 2008, and the supreme court has declined to hear any second amendment cases since 2010. Attorneys and activists on both sides expect a looming fight over the right to carry guns in public, which the Heller decision does not address.The right to bear arms: what does the second amendment really mean?

First of all, I respect Justice Stevens for his work.However, some of his statements in his article are incorrect at best, and intentionally inflammatory at worst.For example, he states the following:For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”This is incorrect. The court in US v. Miller (which is a case we generally do not like to cite because Miller nor his counsel was present to defend himself) did not hold that a sawed-off shotgun had no reasonable relation to the preservation of a “well-regulated militia” which implies that the right guaranteed in the Second Amendment is inextricably tied to militia service, which has always been untrue. The court actually held that a sawed-off shotgun could be regulated because it was not in common use in the military. Miller imposed the “common use” test that we use today.But “common use” is not all we look at when we discuss firearms, because clearly, fully-automatic M-16s and M4s are in “common use” in today’s military, and those items are also restricted from civilian ownership. So clearly there is more than just “common use.”He goes on to say:In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms.He’s not only being deceitful here, but he’s performing an activity known as “revisionist history.” If anything, Heller corrected some of the incorrect interpretations of the Second Amendment being a collective right and cemented the traditional, natural-rights based understanding that the Second Amendment is actually an individual right, as it was intended to be.There was no long-settled understanding of anything related to the Second Amendment, and Miller certainly didn’t confer any idea that gun ownership was only relegated to service in a “well regulated militia” as he likes to believe. If that were the case, 44 state constitutions would have had to be re-written because they all guarantee their citizens the right to keep and bear arms while not serving in an organized state militia. Indeed, even Federal law would have needed to be overturned, as it classifies all citizens as members of the unorganized militia. Notice that Federal law was not repealed, even after Miller. Nothing is ever “long-settled” when it comes to the SCOTUS.Then he goes on to sayOverturning [DC v. Heller] via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.So the question remains: Is repealing the Second Amendment simple?To answer that question, we first need to answer the question of how you repeal a Constitutional amendment. So how do you do it? You must pass another amendment to overturn the Second Amendment.There are two ways to draft an amendment to the Constitution:Two thirds of Congress can pass a Bill of Amendment (that means you need a supermajority in both houses of Congress)Two thirds of the states can vote to call a Constitutional Convention to draft and approve an Amendment. This is sometimes called an “Article V Convention” since Article V of the Constitution authorizes it.Note that in the entire history of our nation, an Article V Convention has never been called. Apparently, it’s easier to get a supermajority of Congress to pass a Bill of Amendment than it is to get two thirds of the states to call for an Article V Convention.So that’s a pretty big hurdle in and of itself to overcome: you’d have to get two thirds of Congress to approve an Amendment which repeals the Second Amendment. And thanks to the direct election of Senators, every single Member of Congress is directly beholden to the people, so they will all only vote as the people want them to vote. So if there’s no supermajority of American citizens who want to repeal the Second Amendment, Congress certainly won’t pass a Bill of Amendment which does just that.But let’s assume that somehow, you can get a supermajority of Congress to pass a Bill of Amendment which repeals the Second Amendment. You still have to ratify the amendment before it becomes part of the Constitution. Ratification requires three fourths of the State legislatures (38 states) to vote to ratify the amendment for inclusion into the Constitution. Therefore, you have to have a majority of legislatures in 38 separate states (not just New York, California, Illinois and Massachusetts) vote to repeal the Second Amendment by ratifying a new amendment. A second method of ratification is state ratifying conventions, which have been used only one time in US history: to ratify the 21st Amendment. Interestingly, the 21st Amendment was the Amendment which repealed the 18th Amendment, which introduced Prohibition.Does that sound “simple” to you? I believe Justice Stevens’ definition of “simple” is much different than mine is, as well as his interpretation of SCOTUS’ legislative history.None of this says anything at all about how you can get 300 million guns out of the hands of citizens when you do repeal the Second Amendment. Can you simply make all guns illegal to possess? Article 1 Paragraph 9 of the Constitution prohibits Congress from passing any laws which apply ex post facto and Article 1 Paragraph 10 applies the same restriction on the states. Can you do a buyback? The Fifth Amendment requires you to pay fair market value for the guns. You think the government has enough money to pay fair market value for 300 million guns? They couldn’t print money fast enough! I mean, if it was so “simple” to repeal the Second Amendment, you may as well repeal Article 1 paragraphs 9 and 10 so you can make possession of a gun a crime, and repeal the Fifth Amendment as well so you can avoid having to pay fair market value for any now-illegal guns you seize.And what if people simply don’t turn the guns in? You need warrants before you can search people’s homes. You’d next have to repeal the Fourth Amendment as well as the Fifth Amendment so that you can bust into every home in America without a warrant and attempt to seize the guns. If I was an active cop at that time, I’d certainly not volunteer to do that.I suppose, alternatively, you could then repeal the Posse Comitatus Act and force the military and the National Guard to do it, but by that point, you’ve destroyed enough of the Constitution that you’ve then simply guaranteed the next Civil War.TL;DR: There is absolutely nothing simple at all about repealing the Second Amendment, and it’s only the beginning of the troubles that doing so would cause.

A few years ago Brazil's economy was in similar situation what India is in today.After a huge lot of pressure,their central bank cut short interest rates by good points and result was their economy slumped from over 7% to about 3% growth rate.Reason: Huge cut-shorted rates caused so much of credit spree that now overburdened customers are struggling to pay.Rajan sir has no problem in cutting rates, but he wants to have sustainable growth, means he is happy to see India growing at 7% for 10, 20 years rather than see it growing at 10% for two years and seeing it collapse after 2 years due to mis-governance and grow at 2% for next ten years.This is a mis-conception that he is not cutting rates due to inflation, this is one of reason, but a secondary reason. Inflation is not a sole criteria for deciding to amend interest rate.His primary reason is that he wants government to implement reforms first. True that and I really agree with him.This is very simple to understand and I don't know why people are making it hard just to panic over media reports that rajan sir is creating hindrance in growth by govt.Lets say rajan sir cuts interest rates according to will of government and industrial lobby,But land bill and GST are pending and there is deadlock on it = borrowers take huge amounts of credit from banks, but not able to use it due to pending law reforms and policy paralysis, that credit goes waste, in other words doesn't gets utilized fully = no or very little mfg growth = companies not able to recover investments + pending projects (remember reform paralysis) = NPAs rise + collapse situation + unemployment + return of high inflation >> low economic growth.Another good point rajan sir made is of saving depositors.As is clear, low interest rate = low returns to depositors = less interest of people in institutional saving = more investment in physical assets (undesirable for economy).You see household saving are one of the best sources for public projects funding, reduces liability for govt. from other expensive sources.And our household saving is already abysmal merely at 25%.So how can we justify govt's demand for higher rate cuts.Rajan sir is a far-sighted person. He predicted the great depression'2008 in 2005 and i feel lucky to see him as our governor'sensible enough to take mature decision without bowing to all-round pressure.Edit- Many people are unable to check for Rajan sir's cautious mode to testify the above answer which is purposely written in my words just for the sake of simplicity for everyone.For those who are interested, just wish to inform that Rajan sir has repeatedly emphasized on structural reforms rather relying solely on monetary policy tools for growth whole round the past year in his various speeches.That's one of the reason why he is cutting short rates incrementally (inclusive of other factors like Fed rate hike decision speculation too).Here:: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2015-08-28/news/65969350_1_financial-sector-reforms-banking-system-india-governor-raghuram-rajan