Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Former Member of the Supreme Court Wants to Add These Five Words to the Second Amendment
The Blaze ^ | 22 Feb 2014 | Jason Howerton

Posted on 02/22/2014 10:25:10 AM PST by mandaladon

Pro-gun advocates will likely be relieved that John Paul Stevens, 93, is now retired and no longer serving as a member of the Supreme Court. In his upcoming book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” he argues for a slight change to the Second Amendment that would fundamentally alter its meaning.

As written by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment reads:

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. Stevens argues that the authors of the Second Amendment were mostly concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army, not so much about the right to self-defense.

So in order to reflect the changing times, he says, the Second Amendment should be altered to add five key words:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands,” Stevens writes in his defense of the change.

Stevens retired in 2010 after serving on the nation’s highest court for 35 years.

The odds of his crusade to transform the Second Amendment has little chance of even receiving serious consideration as Americans have rejected gun control efforts at the state and federal levels.

(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guns; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last
To: mandaladon

Sorry, Justice Stevens. You lose. Thanks for playing. Your suggested change to the 2A effectively does nothing. Why? Because “militia” is not defined in the Constitution. So guess who gets to define it? Not SCOTUS. That power is reserved to the States and the People.


41 posted on 02/22/2014 11:19:59 AM PST by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
The militia was the general citizenry, but organized by a local officer in times of need.

The added words would not change the original expectation, but it would give today's liberals more fodder for reinterpreting the amendment.

Where Stevens' idea fails is where those "serving" in the militia will get their arms, if they are not allowed to keep them when not formally organized. Is he suggesting that each locality keep a public armory where the citizens go to get their arms when called up to serve?

-PJ

42 posted on 02/22/2014 11:20:34 AM PST by Political Junkie Too (If you are the Posterity of We the People, then you are a Natural Born Citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

The only ‘changing times’ is that our courts no longer support our constitution.


43 posted on 02/22/2014 11:21:58 AM PST by CodeToad (Arm Up! They Are!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hardastarboard

It would clarify the amendment a lot more to remove everything to the left of the commas.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
But that would be ‘amending the amendment’ even though it is for good. <: <: <:

Like
The judge said the lawyer was crazy.
throw in a comma or two
The judge, said the lawyer, was crazy.

A comma here and a comma there and pretty soon you have a whole new meaning of the same words.


44 posted on 02/22/2014 11:23:27 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 --When you have them by the short hairs, the minds and hearts soon follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DuncanWaring
"And the Battle of Athens. (iirc,1946)"
precisely...scares any/all the Establishment
Marxists in power or out..including GOP/e.

45 posted on 02/22/2014 11:24:35 AM PST by skinkinthegrass (The end move in politics is always to pick up a gun..0'Caligula / 0'Reid / 0'Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn; Hardastarboard; All

Also just wonder how much ink this would have gotten had he AGREED with US????

I know that is a redundant question......


46 posted on 02/22/2014 11:26:37 AM PST by xrmusn (6/98 --When you have them by the short hairs, the minds and hearts soon follow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
The man's an idiot. His edit essentially renders the 2nd down to: "Only government employees may be armed." And of course, that has nothing to do with "rights", and besides, the federal government's few powers are already enumerated in the body of the Constitution.

He should be ashamed.

47 posted on 02/22/2014 11:29:51 AM PST by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gusty
The language used on this gun grabbers dream makes absolutely no sense.

Making sense is never a liberals strong point...

48 posted on 02/22/2014 11:30:56 AM PST by Popman ("Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God" - Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

bttt


49 posted on 02/22/2014 11:33:59 AM PST by Liberty Valance (Keep a simple manner for a happy life :o)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

No they don’t. It seems that the momentum is usually with those pushing against the foundation, rather than those trying to maintain the foundation in place. Just think of all the “progress” we’ve made in the last few decades, or even since the advent of this administration. It’s more diffucult for us conservatives because we’re trying to conserve, to maintain, to hold in place, while they’re always trying to push us (push us right off the edge of the cliff).


50 posted on 02/22/2014 11:36:10 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BRL

What all the left ignores is that the Constitution was never intended to “give” us rights. It was to protect certain God-given rights, as far as the Founders could define them. When we start thinking and talking in terms of what the Constitution “gives” us, we’re allowing them to falsely frame the terms.


51 posted on 02/22/2014 11:40:30 AM PST by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

Ignorance. I wonder what Justice Stevens believes is the threat to the "free State?" Obviously, given the extremes the Foudners went through to prevent a tyrannical ovenrment, they are referring to that as the main threat and not foreign invasion.
52 posted on 02/22/2014 11:41:13 AM PST by Vision (Living in beauty)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Stevens’ hatchet job turns the meaning of the Amendment on its head. The whole point was that citizens would provide their own arms and ammmunition (and be experienced in using them); that was what made the militia “well-regulated”.


53 posted on 02/22/2014 11:43:02 AM PST by Campion ("Social justice" begins in the womb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mrsmel

Great point


54 posted on 02/22/2014 11:43:05 AM PST by BRL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: JimRed

Good point. The militia of which you speak is the National Guard
in the minds of Stevens and the libs. The militia you describe is
separate and distinct because the National Guard was long ago
compromised by the fed govt.

In Federalist 46 James Madison describes the armed Americans
as opposed to the Euros who were not allowed to own weapons.
He indicates that armed Americans could form militias, not that
formed militias could acquire guns.


55 posted on 02/22/2014 11:43:07 AM PST by Sivad (NorCal red turf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

The legal definition of the term, “militia” -

Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

I don’t think we want to hang our hats on the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. The second clause is better. According to the above legal code, anybody over 45 is not part of the militia. But since this legal code came after the adoption of the constitution, the age limitation can be disputed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the part that should be emphasized.

**Note - Title 10 also makes no provision for US females or those people claiming to be something in between. So, old geezer males, ladies of all ages, and some people in San Francisco might have common cause to emphasize the 2nd clause of the 2nd Amendment. Politics, in deed, can make strange “bedfellows”.


56 posted on 02/22/2014 11:46:55 AM PST by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters for Freedom and Rededication to the Principles of the U.S. Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

I’ll keep the Founders version


57 posted on 02/22/2014 11:47:25 AM PST by drypowder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xrmusn
Punctuation saves lives.

Let's eat grampa.

Let's eat, grampa.

58 posted on 02/22/2014 11:54:52 AM PST by Hardastarboard (The question of our age is whether a majority of Americans can and will vote us all into slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

and the freedom of the press can be amended to say the freedom of the state-run press


59 posted on 02/22/2014 11:55:00 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mandaladon

He wants to do away with individual rights and go for group rights?


60 posted on 02/22/2014 11:55:37 AM PST by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-94 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson