(06-08-2018 11:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(06-08-2018 09:27 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  

(06-07-2018 05:24 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  I think the will of the voting public is paramount.

The judiciary is the last line of protection for the rights of the minority.

If the majority in a state wants to drastically curtail gun ownership to a degree that it pretty clearly violates 2A is the will of the public paramount? The will of the public was not paramount when the 101st Airborne Division occupied my city.

If the voting public supports the elimination of the Second Amendment and the processes and procedures to amend the Constitution are met, then yes. Of course. How could it be any other way? Why would you want it any other way?

If the public wants to eliminate the second amendment or repeal the ban on slavery or birthright citizenship or voting rights for women or voting rights based on age for people over 18 it would require:
1. 2/3rds vote of the House
2. 2/3rds vote of the Senate (1 and 2 can be in any order)
3. Ratification by 38 states
-OR-
1. Convention call by 34 states
2. Ratification of what the convention does by 38 states.

It wasn't that long ago that a court struck down an Illinois law that violated the protections of 2A. If the people of Illinois had the power to recall the judge for ruling against the law they might well have done it.

The Founders apparently feared the will of the voting public.
They created a method to elect presidents that they thought would be the people telling people they respected to go pick a president for them, the pledged elector wasn't a thing.
They kept the selection of judges out of the hands of the people and the recall of judges.
They kept the Senate chamber out of the hands of the direct vote of the citizens of the state.
The only direct selection they handed them was that of Representatives and even then they didn't want Representatives to represent more than 30,000 to 50,000 people.