John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

New York Times ^ | March 27, 2018 | JOHN PAUL STEVENS

[reaganaut1]

Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.

Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.

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.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment.

[dead]

There’s a process defined if you want to amend the Constitution. Good luck with that, judge.

[Magnatron]

I say go for it...

All of this whining about gun control from the left is just that — whining. If they really want to change things, launch a repeal effort. It’s the only thing that they can do to get rid of guns.

Of course, there’s a few flies in that ointment.

They’ll need 2/3 of Congress to pass it, followed by 3/4 of the states to ratify. That’ll take probably about 10 years or so, IF they can get the votes (which is highly unlikely). But for the sake of argument, let’s say they get it through. There’s 300 million firearms in circulation here. It’ll take another 50-100 years to get rid of those, but that doesn’t count the smuggling that will take place to replace those that are lost.

But in the end, if they want to get rid of guns, all the whining in the world won’t change anything. They are more than welcome to take the steps that will ban them — repeal.

Good luck with that...

[Fightin Whitey]

How 'bout if we pass a law forbidding anyone (non-military) who worked for the federal government, who is on a government pension, who is worth five million dollars or more, or has anything to do with what is considered "the media," be forbidden to have locks on their gates, their doors, their windows, their cars.

And no guns either and nothing but butter knives on the premises.

Robberies, home invasions, homicidal vengeance attacks and just doped-up lunatic off-handed murders would be carried out much faster and cleaner than now, with the likely end result of fewer deaths overall.

Plus "the media" would be a helluva lot more careful about what they say.

In the meantime, Justice Stevens, why don't you shut up, die and let us go on trying to live our own decent, God-fearing and ARMED lives as we are guaranteed the right to do!

[Hugh the Scot]

Not exactly...

WE protect our right to defend ourselves.

The Second Amendment simply denies the government the authority to disarm us.

It has always been, even before the Constitution was written, the responsibility of free men & women to enforce their rights to keep & bear arms; by the bearing of arms if necessary. Idiots like JPS need to be reminded of this occasionally.

If there are 10,000 true American Patriots still alive on this continent, then the Second Amendment really is just some words on an old piece of paper.
The armed citizen is the only protection an armed citizen will ever have.

[MosesKnows]

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.”

They did something else with that decision. They ruled that the individual could own a firearm in common use of the day.

The AR15 is in common use of the day?

If the nation felt a strong need to amend the Constitution they could repeal the 2nd Amendment but that would not give Congress the power to legislate gun ownership. It would however remove the prohibition against legislation infringing on the individual’s right to gun ownership.

Just for fun, how do you think Congress would word that legislation?

[Mr Ramsbotham]

These demonstrations demand our respect.

Why don't we hold another Constitutional convention and let the kiddies run it? They're so much wiser than us adults.

[PROCON]

RKBA Ping List

This Ping List is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.

FReepmail me if you want to be added to or deleted from the list.

More 2nd Amendment related articles on FR's Bang List.

[budj]

I believe that one of the justices commented, after the decision, that it probably would have been different if the attorneys had noted that the sawed off shotgun was used in WWI as a trench gun.

[DBrow]

“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.”

And logically one can say that Miller says that 2A protects the right of civilians to own militarily appropriate firearms.

[FlingWingFlyer]

While we’re going to screw around with the Bill of Rights, we might as well change the Constitution to make Federal “judges” be required to be elected to their positions BY THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. If these screwball “judges” want to be little gods, the American people should have a say in whether they get to play god or not. It’s time to make these scumbags run for their places on our courts.

[BobL]

While I certainly don’t support repealing the Second Amendment, this guy is doing us a big service in stating that it is valid in the context of civilian ownership of firearms.

[Red Badger]

Holding them “close to the Mao jacket” is no longer required....................

[Obadiah]

"These demonstrations demand our respect."

The fascists are beginning to come forth.

[tomkat]

Agreed

Molon Labe

[1Old Pro]

The kid will be a drunkard in the alley by next year.

[a fool in paradise]

>>I have no idea what Stevens’ excuse is.

A lifetime of love for militant leftist anarchy against this nation?

[a fool in paradise]

Stevens and McCain probably have long deep meaningful conversations every evening. #Not

[thulldud]

There is no question that Mr. Stevens is fully aware that a civil war would follow and millions would die.

And he is probably sure that he would not himself be one of those millions. So virtuous as long as it's OTHER peoples' money and lives at stake; unsurprising for a leftist.

[Thibodeaux]

Guns are for killing tyrants

JPS has exposed his personal tyranny

[Road Warrior ‘04]

We are looking at another Civil War, folks.

Yep! I've been saying that for some time now. CWII will begin in Oregon and proceed across the country. This won't be a video game war, either!