Governors, The Protecting People from Explosives Amendment has passed the senate

[Donerail]

And furthermore, considering there is basically no definition of what is "low", I believe everyone can argue that dynamite is low.

Not at all. High-potency explosives are ones where the reaction travels through the explosive at faster than the speed of sound - dynamite and TNT fall in this category. Low-potency explosives would be ones where the reaction wave moves at subsonic speeds, like black powder or other fireworks. That's seemingly the most logical way to differentiate between high-potency and low-potency explosives. There is nothing in the Constitution that can be construed to allow you to "wear dynamite", whatever the hell that means.

[Donerail]

Oh and, with the current constitution, there is absolutely no regulation possible. "it shall not be infriged". I believe that a prisoner can require to keep his weapon in jail for instance.  With the US 2nd amendment right, while it protects the right of bearing weapons, there is still this notion of "regulation": so I believe with the US second amendment, prisoners can't require to keep their guns in jail for instance.

Could you explain the meaning of the clause in the Constitution which states "The Atlasian government shall not deprive any citizen of ... liberty ... without due process"? Does not that clause mean we can deprive citizens of the liberties they enjoy under the Constitution, including the right to bear arms, through the judicial process?

Sjoyce, there is no definition of "low potency" explosives. So I believe it allows every explosive because you can argue this is "low" for everything, considering there is no definitionN.

Courts can define it and their precedent will set a precise definition for our system. That's how a common law system works.

[Donerail]

"the right to bear an arm shall not be infringed": you can NEVER take the gun of someone in any case.
If a judge wants to take the gun of a prisoner, he couldn't because that would infringe this right.

There's dozens of states where convicted felons cannot own weapons even after they're released from prisons. You can absolutely lose a right even if it's guaranteed in the Constitution so long as its removal is conducted through due process and I don't see how you can interpret it differently.

You're speaking about the current US system? Do you realize the current Supreme Court is full of crazy people like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas? I prefer not to put that in the constitutioin, because this is a utopy to think judges are fair in their judgement, they are appointed after a decision made by politicians who are EXTREMELY under lobby influence, so potentially a lobby of dynamite could rise etc.

I'm speaking about either the current US system or Atlasia's, doesn't matter. No judge is stupid enough to say that any part of the law implies that prisoners can bear arms. Neither Antonin Scalia nor Clarence Thomas - nor any other politician or public servant - want a society where prisons are controlled by armed prisoners. The idea that it's a realistic possibility that a 'lobby of dynamite' might influence judges to declare that convicted felons can carry grenades while serving their sentences is either deliberately disingenuous or mind-numbingly dense. Your amendment tries to resolve a problem that has never existed, does not exist, and will never become a problem by adding more language that does nothing other than make the Constitution a muddled mess to a clause that has not been an obstacle to major gun control in the past. There's neither concrete need nor coherent rationale for it and as such it's a useless piece of law.

[Donerail]

I'm speaking about wearing dynamites and grenades freely. Not necessary a felon, and that would be dangerous.

What does it mean to "wear dynamites"? Honestly not sure what this means - I've never seen anybody wearing dynamite except as some sort of suicide vest, and presumably suicide bombers aren't too interested in obeying the Constitution.

There is a lobby for guns, so why not a lobby for grenades and dynamite too?

Because very few civilians have any reason to purchase grenades and dynamite? You can't defend your home or self with it while still maintaining some reasonable level of personal safety. Really, you're addressing a problem that doesn't exist.