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 ...
Amending the Constitution is an extremely difficult & cumbersome process just as the Founders designed it. An Amendment can be repealed or modified only by passing & ratifying a new Amendment. Look up Prohibition.
Justice Stevens is joining William O. Douglas in terms of irrelevant carping senility. If he feels that strongly about limiting gun rights, then he should start his campaign forthwith.
Exactly....you’d think a former Supreme Court Justice would know better....
goodnesswins asked: “What’s the meaning of ‘militia?’”
The legal definition is still a part of current federal law, here’s the relevant section of the U.S.C.:
10 U.S. Code § 311 -
Militia: composition and classes
(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.
You see, the constitution grants Congress the authority to mobilize the “militia” but does not define that key term. However, the same legislators that drafted and approved the Bill of Rights also decided to pass the Militia Acts, which among other things delegated Congressional authority to mobilize the militia to the President. In so doing, they wrote a legal definition of what the militia was. This gives modern readers clear insight into what the writers were really thinking of when they wrote “militia” in the second amendment.
Congress defined the militia as consisting of all able-bodied males of military age in the nation. Fascinatingly enough, the Second Militia Act required that all able-bodied males of military age in the nation acquire and keep ready the standard-issue military weapon of the age and keep it along with sufficient ammunition to wage a pitched battle. This is somewhat akin to the militia system in Switzerland that helped ensure the Swiss were able to remain neutral and free through both world wars (you see, the entire voting public, armed to the teeth and hiding in the mountains, aren’t an easy target even for world superpowers right next door).
Later acts of congress such as the Dick Act (established the National Guard in 1903, also called The Militia Act), and the Selective Service Act of 1917, all build upon this legal framework - and as a matter of fact build upon 10 U.S.C. §311 by changing the wording of that established part of federal law (hence the inclusion of women who are members of the national guard into the modern definition of militia). Simply put, all able-bodied men in the nation make up the “militia”, though we’ve expanded the definition over the years to include modern organizations into the traditional umbrella.
If you’ve ever been drafted, or had to register with selective service, understand that the legal and constitutional reasoning behind those actions stems from the simple fact that by legal definition you are a member of the militia and may be called out to defend your nation in time of need.
As the founders envisioned the militia, they imagined the entire body politic armed with the military arms in widespread use by the military powers of the world. Liberty simply cannot exist without the means to defend it, and the founders envisioned a society in which each citizen had both legal rights and the physical means to ensure those rights were never abrogated by either foreign armies or domestic tyrants.
“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?”
Yes, they would be in an armory because what Stevens obviously believes the “militia” to be today is the various National Guard Units - not the general citizenry. Of course, this is not, IMO, what the COTUS writers intended. Fortunately, there is no movement to amend the 2nd amendment. Also, since the Heller decision, it is finally being seen as an individual right instead of merely a collective one.
Nope, they continue to vote for dems and leftist ideals from beyond the grave.
Mark
I've always liked "Glub Glue Glee Club.(hat tip to Crusader Rabbit)
The retired Marxist Stevens is still working towards a Marxist utopia.
dementia is so sad
They then continue to vote.
>> “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,” <<
.
What about the slaughter of innocent civilians caused by the prevalence of guns in the hands of raging government employees?
.
One of the provisions in the English version reads:
"That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law."
I'm not saying that version is better--I don't think Catholics, Jews, or other non-Protestants should be excluded--and the "as allowed by law" leaves too much leeway to the authorities, but there is nothing about militia in the English version.
93? Die already.
Reread the militia act of 1903 aka the Dick act it says the militia is in two parts ,the active militia ie the National Guard & the inactive militia consisting of basically all able bodied citizens between 17 & 45 years of age. I think the Justice wasn’t thinking clearly on this one cause it would give a guarantee to carry arms unless the law is again changed.
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.