Posted on 03/27/2018 5:35:55 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
All fascist regimes prohibit the liberties embodied in our 1st and 2nd Amendments. JP Stevens knows this.
FUJPS...
Clearly a reference to the "Miller" case.
They came to that conclusion because by the time the case reached them, Miller was dead and nobody paid his lawyers to appear to make the case that sawed-off shotguns were in fact excellent weapons for trench warfare.
Yes, that’s an internal contradiction in the argument for gun control. They have tried to use this excuse to ban handguns and tasers because they have no military purpose, thus not covered by the second amendment. I can envision the following argument: we can ban semi auto firearms as not covered by the 2nd because they have less military utility in the function of a militia than full auto firearms, which are already banned. They will use any convoluted circular reasoning they can.
All part of a well-organized leftist game plan. The goal is to create (or at least simulate) a wave of public demand to disarm American citizens.
That POS is still sucking oxygen???
George Mason, who authored the 2nd Amendment, later stated that the reference to “militia” specifically means the populace, as a bulwark against the tyranny that leftists like Stevens advocate.
The Supreme Court ruled that way, because they were presented with only one side
Defendants Miller and Layton filed a demurrer challenging the relevant section of the National Firearms Act as an unconstitutional violation of the Second Amendment. District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon accepted the claim and dismissed the indictment, stating, "The court is of the opinion that this section is invalid in that it violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, U.S.C.A., providing, '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.'" Judge Ragon provided no further explanation of his reasons.In reality, Ragon was in favor of the gun control law and ruled the law unconstitutional because he knew that Miller, who was a known bank robber and had just testified against the rest of his gang in court, would have to go into hiding as soon as he was released. He knew that Miller would not pay a lawyer to argue the case at the Supreme Court and would simply disappear. Therefore, the government's appeal to the Supreme Court would be a sure win because Miller and his attorney would not even be present at the argument.
Wait ... so a paid parade of trained poodles who turned out far less of a crowd than they imagined and give a speech on the capital is enough for this twit to want to destroy the constitution?
Is this moron for real?
There were far MORE tea partiers on the own demanding a repeal to Obamacare - so does he agree that’s justification to amend the constitution and get government out of healthcare?!
Naaah naaah - he’s just a moron.
I doubt he even wrote that. Someone put his name on it and sent it in.
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.
Even if the 2nd amendment did not exist, the government may not disarm the public. See the Presser case.
It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question [2nd amendment] out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration [Illinois parade permit laws] do not have this effect.Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
Our government is full of the most brazen liars. Despicable people.
He really said, “let’s have a civil war!”
There is no question that Mr. Stevens is fully aware that a civil war would follow and millions would die.
Sick MFer.
I wondered the same thing. (and posted it after you did - sorry)
He's been subversive of the constitution all along.
***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.” ***
People should really look at this case. A man was arrested between Oklahoma and Arkansas with a sawed off shotgun as he was planning to rob a bank, the case went to the SCOTUS. When the case came up, the person arrested did not show as he was already dead, so only an anti-gun argument was used to uphold the law.
In the 1970s lots of TV shows tried to use this to prove handguns had “no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.””
Back then, rifles were A-OK but handguns were BAD!.
He was a borderline, if not a communist then, and he’s still one now.
Well—that would be one way to start the next civil war, if that’s what there after...
The students were no more “civically engaged” than the signs they carried. Just a gaggle of useful idiots parroting their masters’ slogans.
The "standing army" of the 18th century was of concern, because its primary function was domestic enforcement of the will of the government. One of the major "checks and balances" they installed, was to try to ensure that the federal government would have NO ABILITY to enforce its decrees without the active support of local authorities.
In 21st Century America, armed "federal law enforcement" is the standing army the Founders so feared.
Back in 1857, the SCOTUS listed in the Dred Scott Case the rights all CITIZENS OF THE USA have. One of which was “The right to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
The Dred Scott case is dead today, but those rights still remain.
John Paul Stevens Wants to Abolish the Death Penalty
That is still the definition. Popular usage of the term as synonymous with a government-organized body is flat wrong.
The statutory definition is an age-limited subset of "able bodied persons."
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.10 USC 246
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.