I'm kinda wondering myself whether constitutional amendments should be included or not, and whether it should only be criminal laws or civil ones as well. On one hand - yeah, if amendments could sunset, the bill of rights would probably be toast the first time there's a crime wave. But then all the laws enacted by the crime wave would themselves sunset, and if it's become a problem, they could reenact the amendment.
OTOH, the purpose of the Constitution in general and the Bill of Rights in particular is so that one group of people cannot gain the power they need to prevent other people from gaining power. And if amendments themselves sunsetted, that would most likely occur, and the disenfranchised groups wouldn't even have a vote next time they came up for vote. So in that light, perhaps amendments should stay regardless.
I still think that the 2nd amendment should definitely be reinterpreted in terms of the laws it allows or doesn't allows. It was intended to prevent the government from gaining too much power by preserving the right of the people to overthrow it by force of arms. In a world of tanks, planes, and nukes, the people no longer have that right anyway. Instead, the 2nd amendment has been recast as a way of preserving the right to kill other people, which works for the government as citizens become so concerned with protecting themselves from home invasions and petty criminals that they forget about the international invasions and grand crooks in Washington. IMHO, it should either be repealed or it should be interpreted to apply to classified information as well, so that the citizenry has the right to build their own nuclear bombs.
