Former Supreme Court justice: 'Repeal the Second Amendment'

[highplainsdem]

Source: The Hill

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is calling for a repeal of the Second Amendment, decrying the right to bear arms as outdated and misunderstood.

In an op-ed published by The New York Times, Stevens, a Republican, said that students and anti-gun violence advocates should press lawmakers to take on the amendment.

-snip-

"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," Stevens wrote.

"But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform," he continued. "They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment."

-snip-

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/380406-former-supreme-court-justice-repeal-the-second-amendment

---

His NYT op-ed is here:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html

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.”
Continue reading the main story

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. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

Stevens goes on to say that Heller "has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power" -- but overturning the decision with a constitutional amendment to get rid of the 2nd Amendment "would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option."


Note: Stevens was nominated for the Supreme Court by a Republican, Gerald Ford.

[lagomorph777]

1. Gun nuts always ignore the central clause: "a well regulated militia"

So yeah, might as well repeal it.

[exboyfil]

3. Maybe get five justices to reevaluate

that amendment. They never can answer why a line is ever drawn with their arguments. The logical conclusion from their arguments is that any weapon that can be personally fired is covered by the 2nd Amendment. Automatic weapons, RPGs, Hand held missiles.

[hack89]

9. Repealing the 2A would not change anything

The 2A allows strict regulation of guns. AWBs, registration and a whole host of guns laws have all been found constitutional.

It is the lack of wide and deep public support that derails gun control.

[Major Nikon]

52. More like wide and deep lobbying by gun nuts

[hack89]

54. Politician fear one thing and that is voters.

The gun lobby can get voters to the polls - that is why they have real political power. The gun control lobby cannot and until they prove they can, nothing is really going to change.

[Major Nikon]

63. Sure, the $54 million spent in 2016 made no difference whatsoever

[hack89]

68. And why can't the gun control lobby raise that kind of cash?

In 2016 Hillary Clinton alone spent $750 million. Planned Parenthood has spent nearly as much as the NRA on lobbying since 2012 so we know that progressive causes can raise large amount of cash to buy off legislators.

So the question still is why the gun control lobby is so weak and powerless?

[Major Nikon]

70. So first it wasn't about the money, but now it is

Which was my point to begin with.

Despite repeating the NRA talking points, support for gun control has never been the issue. Lobbying is the issue.

[hack89]

76. It is both. I just wanted to address your concerns

Last edited Tue Mar 27, 2018, 12:50 PM - Edit history (1)

ultimately it is about getting people to vote. Especially if you are going to concede that gun control will never be able to match the gun lobby when it comes to money and buying politicians (which is an interesting concession by the way).

Your issue is that you think support = voter support. Voter demographics are very well known - not all groups vote at equal rates. Which is why the entire student led movement most likely will not amount to much. As Bernie learned the hard way, counting on the demographic with the lowest historic voting rate is not a winning strategy.

[Major Nikon]

85. Its pretty naive to assume money doesnt play a huge part

The idea that money equates to support is even more naive. There’s all sorts of reasons why the gun lobby has more money and it certainly isn’t because they have anywhere close to the same numbers of people behind them. They have an entire money making industry behind them. They can feed on the rabid paranoia that causes gun nuts to be gun nuts to begin with. Since they are supporting GOP candidates virtually exclusively they are commonly used as a tax deductible method of funneling money to GOP candidates. Perhaps you missed the story on the current NRA investigation about laundering Russian millions.

[hack89]

87. Money equates to votes.

that is why our elections are so fucking expensive. Everyone else seems to realize that and can raise money. Except gun control. Why is that?

Planned Parenthood can keep up with the NRA so don't tell me that the NRA has some unique magic that can't be matched by progressive organizations.

[Major Nikon]

88. Sure, all gun control needs are some Russian billionaires

[hack89]

92. No. They need to learn from Planned Parenthood

gun control doesn't need to break the law. They just need to learn how to fund raise. There are vast amounts of money floating around the system - $50M is a drop in the bucket.

[Major Nikon]

93. Gun control isnt a civil rights issue

Apple meet orange.

[hack89]

95. So people care about gun control but not enough to actually change anything?

one of your more accurate statements for sure.

[Major Nikon]

96. I just think its pretty silly to compare the two

It took hundreds of years and a shitload of marches to turn that tide. I suppose you could delude yourself into pretending this is no different and the overwhelming money and corruptible interests are just no factor, but this is reaching well beyond my absurdity tolerance.

[hack89]

97. You are just rationalizing failure

But I understand the need. Perhaps we should end the thread now.

[DBoon]

84. Because we won't take funds from foreign sources

including high ranking Russian officials

[hack89]

86. Neither does Planned Parenthood yet they are able to keep up with the NRA

plenty of money out there.

[Grins]

24. ...to the point where those words are

...deliberately left off the front of the NRA headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. Only half of this amendment is chiseled into the building – the second half.

The NRA!!! Proudly defending HALF a Constitutional Amendment, since 1871!

[erronis]

61. Guess what they don't allow into their headquarters? (good guess!)

[malthaussen]

32. Which is not a prescriptive clause...

... but an explanatory one. So I find most arguments based on it to be basically non-sequiturs.

The meaning of "infringed" is more fruitful. Further, the prescriptive clause doesn't say doo-dad about buying arms, just bearing them. This is a potent legal point, which justifies any regulation on the purchase of arms one may care to enact.

-- Mal

[former9thward]

34. People who wish to eliminate gun rights

always ignore what that phrase meant in 1789. Or they say "Who cares what it meant then, now is now".

At least Justice Stevens is being honest with his views. He wants to eliminate the 2nd amendment. Not something I want but at least is a honest opinion.

Of course even eliminating the 2nd amendment would leave a vast majority of states that have a provision echoing the 2nd amendment in their state Constitutions. So the same issues would continue.

[Hoyt]

35. Would love to hear your version of what it meant in 1789. It seems pretty clear to me, and

the scholarly explanations I have seen often involved making sure slave states could control the humans they allowed people to own. it was some pretty ugly stuff, actually.

[former9thward]

39. I have never seen your version in any of the documents of the time.

Documents where the founders made arguments about the various Constitutional provisions and the Bill of Rights (such as the Federalist papers). But that aside, "regulated" in 1789 meant "well equipped". And the "militia" meant "the whole people". Of course there was no formal militia as we know it at the time. The founders did not want a standing army and what we now call the National Guard did not appear until the 1880s.

You are right, the slave owners certainly did not want their slaves to have any gun rights. I certainly would not want to endorse any anti-gun philosophy which echoes their arguments.

[Hoyt]

43. That's what you get for relying on gunner junk. Gun sites are almost always white wing, and quite

racist.


Here's one -- of many -- article that offer another opinion:

"In fact, if we restored the Second Amendment to its original meaning, it would be the NRA’s worst nightmare. Invoking the Second Amendment ought to be a more effective argument for increased regulation than it is against it. . . . . .

"When the Second Amendment is discussed today, we tend to think of those “militias” as just a bunch of ordinary guys with guns, empowering themselves to resist authority when and if necessary. Nothing could be further from the founders’ vision.

"Militias were tightly controlled organizations legally defined and regulated by the individual colonies before the Revolution and, after independence, by the individual states. Militia laws ran on for pages and were some of the lengthiest pieces of legislation in the statute books. States kept track of who had guns, had the right to inspect them in private homes and could fine citizens for failing to report to a muster.

"The founders had a word for a bunch of farmers marching with guns without government sanction: a mob. One of the reasons we have a Constitution is the founders were worried about the danger posed by individuals acting like a militia without legal authority. This was precisely what happened during Shays’ Rebellion, an insurrection in western Massachusetts that persuaded many Americans that we needed a stronger central government to avert anarchy."

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/amendment-don-article-1.1223900

[LanternWaste]

74. I see no one doing so...

"I certainly would not want to endorse any anti-gun philosophy which echoes their arguments..."

I see no one doing so... except through cowed implication as an argument against gun control.

[EX500rider]

90. here, I will help you out:

Firstly, it was the militias that were to be regulated, not the people, nor firearms.

Secondly, in 18th century parlance, "well regulated" meant "well functioning". For example, highly accurate clocks of the era, such as those used to set the time of other, lesser-accurate clocks by, were known as "regulators". "Well regulated" did not mean "Constrained by rules".

[Hoyt]

94. Thank you. But, I'll take Justice Stevens, historians, and legal scholars to gun supporters and

and profiteers' explanations.

[Marengo]

102. Do you agree with his opinion in Texas v Johnson?

[Ported_Maryjoseph]

113. Okay,

Positive, constructive, community, rather than "do this. Do this. Not that. "

[Honeycombe8]

60. Well, the issues wouldn't really remain.

Once the lawsuits challenging the conflicting state laws that are contradictory to the federal law are stricken. Well, I don't know if they'd be stricken, but they wouldn't have the authority of the federal constituional amendment.

You can't grant a federal constitutional right in a state constitution. So it would become a state right...secondary to federal laws. And wouldn't carry the weight that federal law does....AND would not be able to contradict gun controls at the federal level.

Seems to me the S CT should clarify that amendment. What is meant by "militia," and does it include every single gun, bomb, and cannon in existence? Of course, this S CT isn't the one that should do that....because it WOULD add that it does include every single gun known to man, and possibly bombs, too.

[former9thward]

66. You are mixing apples and oranges.

The OP was talking about eliminating the 2nd amendment. Elimination of an amendment would not do anything to state Constitutions. If anything it would create a vacuum that state Constitutions would fill.

Now if you are saying that after eliminating the 2nd you would eliminate gun rights at the federal level then that is another matter. I don't believe any Congress would ever do that.

[Honeycombe8]

100. I believe the Constitution of the U S is controlling and primary to state constitutions,

where there are contradictory rights/restrictions.

You cannot give a fundamental right in the country by state constitution, as far as I know. Some state constitutions contain their own versions of 2nd amendments, but those are duplicative of the federal one.

Example: If the U S S Ct overturns Roe v Wade, and rules that there is no right to privacy insofar as abortion is concerned, a state would not be able to get away with adding a more specific right to privacy in its Constitutional amendments, I believe. It could try, but I think the S Ct would rule it unconstitutional, since the U S does not grant such a right to privacy.

BUT...regarding that right to privacy, IF both the federal govt and the state govt have it in their constitutions, there is no problem. And the state has some latitude in defining procedures or some restrictions that don't materially interfere with that right as regards abortion. In other words, just like the state cannot grant a right that does not exist in the country, it cannot remove a right that is federally guaranteed.

Yes? No? This is complicated. "Who knew this could be so complicated?"

[hack89]

107. The Federal Constitution sets the minum standard

the states are able to grant additional rights or strengthen fights granted at the federal level. If the 2A goes away, there is no Federal standard. There is no conflict because there is nothing that would conflict with the state constitutions. And nearly every state constitution echoes the 2A in some form - those constitutions would govern gun control at the state level.

[X_Digger]

98. Repealing the second amendment would not remove the right.

Rights pre-date the instrument that protects them.

There are a number of good books on the enlightenment philosophy that demonstrate this. The Declaration of Independence is the first example that comes to mind.."endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.. that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men".. As you can see, the rights pre-date the constitution (and BoR).

That seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding- one of the reasons why some framers were leery of even creating the Bill of Rights- for fear that some would take it exhaustive. In answer to that concern, they added the ninth and tenth amendments. Clearly stating that those not reserved to the gov't belong to the states and the people.

So if you magically removed the second amendment today, the right would not disappear; it would be implicitly still protected at the federal level via the ninth amendment, and explicitly protected by various state constitutions.

[Honeycombe8]

101. I see what you're saying. But what those rights might be would be open to interpretation.

Whether the right to have a militia and bear arms is one of the inalienable rights. As opposed to the 2nd Amendment that clearly states it.

So it's not a given that that IS an inalienable right. It would, as before, have to be decided, and legislatively clarified in a law or amendment.

[X_Digger]

103. I'm just trying to reverse the 'the BoR grants..' thinking.

It's fundamental, because once you understand that, then 'the second amendment says..' as a limit on our rights goes away.

Just like the right to medical privacy- it's not enumerated anywhere in our founding documents, yet it wasn't created in 1973. It was assumed by medical professionals and patients since Hippocrates' time.

The right exists regardless of the text of the amendment. (Or lack of text in the case of medical privacy.)

Thinking that our rights are proscribed and limited by the Bill of Rights (and the Constitution) is what RWNJs use to try to limit all kinds of behavior they don't like- they're used to treating the constitution like the bible; a list of 'shall not's. It doesn't work that way.

The Bill of Rights is not a "the people can" document, it's a "the government shall not" document.

It's right there in the preface:

http://www.billofrights.org/

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers" -- "Its" refers to the government, not the people.

[lagomorph777]

106. We have always celebrated the rule of law, not the rule of opinion.

That's why we write it down. It leaves slightly less room for guessing.

[Fred Sanders]

57. Yep. Even removed from NRA HQ edifice! The key is those words and

obviously they fear them. Why erase from their national HQ any of the sacred words.

Ask a gunner....now response.

[yurbud]

89. or really drive them nuts and just repeal the part after the comma.

[Nitram]

108. Gun nuts either ignore the militia clause or misinterpret it to refer to militias that are

in opposition to the federal government, which is the opposite of the intended function of militias.

[lagomorph777]

111. Yeah, I don't think the Founding Fathers intended to create another rebellion

...right after they had finished one.

[Nitram]

112. The militia clause referred to militias formed to put down rebellions against the government.

How did the NRA succeed in getting gun nuts think it was exactly the opposite?

[LonePirate]

2. Couldnt agree more. We need to repeal the 2A. It is antiquated and harmful.

[highplainsdem]

4. "Repeal the Second Amendment" is already trending on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/search?q=%22Repeal%20the%20Second%20Amendment%22&src=tren


RWers are having a fit about it, though some are also gleeful about this supposedly showing what liberals wanted all along, so this "proves" that the calls for gun control are all supposedly meant just as steps toward this goal -- the "slippery slope" the NRA warns about.

I've seen a lot of tweets saying the New York Times is advocating this. What's left out is that it's an op-ed by a Republican SC justice appointed by a Republican president.

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Wow

We didn't have these problems in the 1970s. You left your firearms at home. You went to a shooting range. Police required you to transport long arms in the trunk, and all firearms unloaded. We didn't have a lot of mass shootings back then.

Yes, militia. Minutemen is what the Founders thought. Right to keep and bear - frontier life, highwayman robbers. They didn't expect everyone to be locked and loaded in colonial Philadelphia.

[onetexan]

36. now we have open carry, concealed carry, campus carry - everywhere carry

it's downright frightening what these RW'ers will do to cling to their (twisted idea of) god and their guns. Praise the Lord and pass the ammo.

[FakeNoose]

6. Yes it's been deliberately misinterpreted for too long

The NRA has perpetrated a fraud and it's wrecking our society.

[Girard442]

7. Repealing 2A is a campaign that everyone can understand. I'm in.

The gun nuts will stand against any legislation, full stop. Got a gun that fires .950 caliber armor-piercing explosive rounds that release VX nerve gas? (It can also accept a 50-round magazine and can easily be converted to full-auto). Well, somebody out there will explain they have to go up against herds of wild boars hiding behind stone walls and it's their constitutional right to have it.

Screw 'em.

[gay texan]

73. "Oh I use it for hunting, um, squirrels!"

Yeah! That's the ticket!

[highplainsdem]

8. Tweet from Nick Kristof on this:

Link to tweet

My own view is that a drive to repeal the Second Amendment wouldn't succeed now and would result in million more guns sold. Better to focus on pragmatic steps: universal background checks, red flag laws, limits on magazines, domestic violence & guns, safe storage, etc.

[hack89]

10. Oped endorsed by Remington

and all the other struggling gun makers.

[highplainsdem]

14. As Nick Kristof said in a tweet I quoted above, this could result in a lot more gun sales.

The NRA will definitely try to capitalize on it.

OTOH, the argument Stevens is making is a legitimate, solid one.

[hlthe2b]

11. WOW

I don't even know what to say on this but, wow.

[Brainstormy]

12. Exactly! n/t

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. Yes. Yes. YES. I've been thinking this for decades.

[Lonestarblue]

15. Why not just overturn the Heller decision?

That decision opened the door to gun proliferation and large numbers of people dying from gun shots. Repealing the Second Amendment would take years and success is doubtful. What we need is a Supreme Court that will return to the interpretation that stood for 200 years until certain members of the Court decided to ignore the well-regulated militia part and focus instead on the right of everyone to have as many guns as they want for any reason. Heller was a bad decision and needs to be overturned. There’s a precedent of 200 years versus only 10 years.

[mainstreetonce]

50. Great suggestion

That is what I wanted to say.

[erronis]

64. Heller decision - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It was also clearly stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[1] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed by a vote of 5 to 4 the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the Regulations Act was an unconstitutional ban, and struck down the portion of the Regulations Act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock". Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975.

The majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, and the primary dissenting opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, are considered examples of the application of originalism in practice.[5]

[EX500rider]

110. "What we need is a Supreme Court that will return to the interpretation that stood for 200 years"

No, at no point did you have to be a militia member to own firearms in the US.

In fact in United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", meaning the citizens had a right to weapons of war, you sure you want to dial it back to that?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[jalan48]

16. Whether or not the Second Amendment gets repealed this is a brilliant bargaining strategy.

Put the NRA and their followers on notice that this is the starting point for negotiations.

[highplainsdem]

17. Agree. It makes gun control measures look like the moderate regulations they are.

Not that gun nuts are likely to see it that way.

But most people, thank God, aren't gun nuts.

[jalan48]

22. Yes, it lets them know playing around the edges of the problem is not an option.

I remember the first time I saw some of these guys in a local Starbucks with their Ar's and cammo outfits. My thought was that they wanted to be para-military enforcers like in a Third World dictatorship. Their "rights" are about spreading fear and making themselves more powerful than the average citizen.

[DeminPennswoods]

40. Exactly

When faced with the mounting momentum on gun violence that could make a repeal of his amendment a real possibility, the NRA and their GOP enablers will see giving in to a few more stringent gun regulations as a real good deal.

[hack89]

42. Which means you are either not serious about repealing or about negotiating.

Which is it?

And what makes you think you have the ability to set the terms of any negotiations?

[jalan48]

47. You can be serious about both. Restrictions will be set by our legislative bodies. I assume

there will be debate about those restrictions and what they will be. At the same time public efforts to repeal the Second Amendment can be taking place. Fear of a total repeal can be used to get more out of the legislative deliberations.

[hack89]

51. Gun owners don't fear repeal of the 2A

you are not going to get 38 states to vote yes.

You are correct that there will be debates. And one of two things will happen. Either both sides come in with hard line extreme positions and nothing changes (see post-Sandy Hook debate) or both sides come in with conciliatory positions recognizing the legitimacy of some of the other sides positions and come to consensus on some middle of the road proposals.

Pushing the repeal of the 2A is to provoke a scorched earth response from gun owners that will shut down all debate. Until you can show that you can actually motivate people to vote on the issue, nothing will change.

[jalan48]

62. Do you think the position put forth by this former Supreme Court Justice is "hard line"?

How many kids have been killed in school shootings? My guess is that there is going to be a movement to repeal regardless of whether it is passed by 38 states and in the process educate more citizens as to potential solutions. What "conciliatory" positions has the NRA and the gun owners come up with so far on their own in response to the shootings? I think we've reached a point where a little hard line talk is necessary.

[hack89]

67. You can reject honest negotiations if you think you have the political power to steamroll gun owners

and the NRA. The past 25 years says you don't.

It doesn't matter what you think of the NRA - if you don't have the votes but want to make changes then you will have to compromise with them.

[jalan48]

69. Compromise is fine and barring a repeal that's what we will have.

The NRA and gun owners have shown no interest in compromise even though we continue to have horrific mass shootings of children. In fact, the NRA's response is more guns in schools and society in general. At this point all I see from these two groups is the expectation of capitulation to their desires. Let's try the hard line approach-how could it be any worse than what's been happening up to now?

[hack89]

77. "Expectation of capitulation to their desires" - You just broke my irony meter

isn't that exactly what you expect of gun owners?

[jalan48]

78. So who has been doing the capitulation since the mass shootings began? Gun owners? NRA?

The only irony I see from the NRA and gun owners is the belief that more good guys with guns will solve the problem. What's your solution to dealing with the massacre of kids in schools?

[hack89]

79. Neither side is capitulating.

Just an uneven fight resulting in gun control getting it's ass kicked in the political and public arena. I don't think the gun control lobby is not fighting hard for what they want. They are just not very effective at it. Perhaps it is time for a new strategy.

[jalan48]

81. I agree and I'm going to educate as many people as I can about Justice Stevens remarks.

There are differing opinions on what the Second Amendment means and it's good for the public to hear them.

[Calista241]

104. There need be no negotiations if that is the standard of negotiations

The NRA would just lean back and say "go ahead, repeal the second amendment."

Even if you got 2/3 of the Senate, 3/4 of the states would never, ever pass that nonsense.

And nobody in their right minds would want to call a Constitutional Convention. That's how crazy shit happens, like English as an official language, anti-abortion laws codified into the Constitution, or any other position we could have that are not popular but protected by the courts.

[Paladin]

18. I hope Justice Stevens has a high tolerance for insults and death threats.

Because the radicalized pro-gun movement is sure to deliver them to him.

[highplainsdem]

19. Some people become fearless with age. Stevens is apparently one of them.

Not that he didn't show plenty of bravery while on the Court. He dissented from the majority position not just on Heller, but Bush v. Gore and Citizens United.

But I'm sure he knows what an uproar his op-ed will cause. And how unstable many gun nuts are.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. He will be 98 years old next month

He can easily say "fuck you" to any of them!

[vercetti2021]

20. Well this outta go well

As I see this will probably result in more gun sales because "the dam librals r cuming too tak gunz!

I think the best shot is to amended it.

[yallerdawg]

21. About that "well-regulated militia?"

U.S. Constitution - Article 2 Section 2

"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States..."

Clearly the US Constitution - a document created in support of a revolutionary government - intended Militias to be a military option available to the Executive Branch.

We might just need a Supreme Court to read the entire Constitution including the first half of the 2nd Amendment - and get it right!

[highplainsdem]

25. Hmm. Laurence Tribe says this is "AWFUL advice." Tweet:

Link to tweet

I admire Justice Stevens but his supposedly “simple but dramatic” step of repealing the 2d Am is AWFUL advice. The obstacle to strong gun laws is political, not legal. Urging a politically impossible effort just strengthens opponents of achievable reform.

[nolabels]

80. I have noticed that Laurence Tribe is NOT "We the People"

The kids brilliantly said it first and already, there right to own a weapon does no outweigh everybody's our right to life
(domestic tranquility).
Literal and intent many a lawyer often try to cloak

The US Constitution is an agreement we are keeping under the authority of "We the People"

[AllaN01Bear]

26. the second amendment must be read in its entiraty

and in context. not just the right to bear arms part. and i think what kinds of arms should be speciified.

[highplainsdem]

27. Conservative Washington Times hysteria: "It's SCOTUS, meet Iran."

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/mar/27/john-paul-stevens-ex-scotus-justice-shocks-call-re/

[leanforward]

28. I'm with Justice Stevens.

Also, it would be quite difficult to repeal the Second. I like the approach of 100% BG checks, and a ban assault style weapons and ammo. Domestic violence or any other mental issues that preclude good judgement. Take a test. Clear it through the local PD. Include medical professional opinions.

I'm tired of me and the family being down range and/or having to worry about a deluded individual(s). I can respect the Castle and Hunting. But, when those rounds go off property, you've lost'em. No backyard practice.

[highplainsdem]

29. Cameron Kasky tweet, minutes ago:

Link to tweet

The second amendment was written when African Americans were still considered 3/5ths of a person...

As a matter of fact, if you read it, it didn’t even call them African Americans; it called them “Other Persons”

I really don’t want to listen to 200 years ago for EVERYTHING

Editing to add earlier tweets from Kasky this morning, showing he doesn't agree with Stevens but considers iit an interesting point of view:

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

That second tweet is particularly important to explain his point of view and his goals:

The first amendment has restrictions.

The second amendment has no restrictions. These weapons are not in the hands of “well-regulated” militias.

The changes the people are demanding do not desecrate the second amendment, they just make it a safe addition to our constitution.

[Marengo]

105. No restrictions? That being the case, why cant I purchase an M249 at the local Walmart?

[AdamGG]

30. I'd like to see another constitutional convention to redo the electoral college &gerrymandering also

Preferably after blue wave elections in 2018/2020. Don't think it would ever happen, though.

[HopeAgain]

31. I agree the Heller decision has been a disaster. nt

[malthaussen]

33. I don't see a need to repeal it...

... and suspect it would be very difficult of accomplishment. I suspect that at this point, it would be difficult to get 38 State legislatures to agree on whether the sky were blue.

The amendment is not the problem, it is the abuse of it that needs to be corrected.

-- Mal

[Hoyt]

37. Stevens' dissent in Heller -- joined by three other Justices -- is really worth reading.

Even ole Tony Scalia pointed out directly that tough gun control is legal.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html

[highplainsdem]

59. Chris Hayes agrees with you:

Link to tweet

[ancianita]

38. 2A might be one way we can be sure the Koch goal of a constitutional convention never happens.

The Kochs would looove a constitutional convention, but not for Stevens' reason.

Five more states's votes are needed (29 have voted yes) to create a national constitutional convention, and the issue of reapealing 2A might well be the flash point for their decisions.

Given the hardline state and party politics today, a constitutional convention over 2A could well foment secession and civil war. Talk about building walls...

[Snake Plissken]

41. Democrats are trying their hardest to ensure Republicans stay in control forever

It's no surprise that Trump's poll numbers are going up and the Democrats lead going into the midterms is shrinking. I work with quite a few people who voted for Trump, and I'd say most of them can't stand Trump but will vote for him again, because Democrats are allowing themselves to be painted as extremists, and now that Trump finally stopped obsessing about the 2016 election, we now have Hillary trying to relive it and chasing Trump voters away. If this article came out a week before the special election in PA, I doubt Conor Lamb would have won especially considering that the Libertarian candidate received votes totaling twice the margin of victory.

Say what you will but this is what I hear people complaining about. The Democrats have great chance of regaining control of the House and the Senate, but it's looking more and more like they really don't want to win, which is truly unfortunate because our current Republican controlled government is a complete disaster, worse than I ever imagined.

[OliverQ]

45. So it's our fault that a Republican former

Justice mentions repealing the amendment?

[highplainsdem]

46. First of all, Stevens is a Republican, appointed to the SC by a Republican. Second of all,

gun nuts usually treat even the most minimal gun control recommendations as threats to the 2nd Amendment, so Dems not talking about the 2nd Amendment doesn't take that subject off the table.

What Stevens had done here is laid out thoughtful arguments for what many would see as an extreme position now.

And he's also pointed out, very carefully, that gun control laws of the past that gun nuts consider extreme now were once considered perfectly in accord with the 2nd Amendment.

He moved the goal post, changed the playing field.

The way Dems should handle this is to point out that Stevens is a Republican, and to mention what he said about gun control pre-Heller. They need to make the case that Heller was an extreme decision.

They don't have to choose between agreeing with him completely and despairing that anyone who feels the way he does dares to admit it and explain why. He does have a legitimate point of view. Pretending otherwise is a huge concession to the gun nuts.

[docgee]

44. What a bad idea this is right now.

All it will do is give RWNJs something to rally around, use to fund raise, and use to pull votes away from Democratic candidates.

If the right wing didn't have abortion and gun control to cry about, they would never get elected. Don't give them fuel over a lost cause. The 2nd amendment will never be repealed, period. We just need an SC to review the interpretation.

[Snake Plissken]

48. Bingo.

[Marcuse]

55. This is something one would expect the Russian Troll Factory to exploit.

[Loge23]

49. At the least, a rewrite.

The Constitution has been rewritten, amended, and interpreted many, many times. For some reason, we have allowed an extreme bloc of people to hijack the 2A for their own purposes. I have heard many, many people on the left kowtow to this bloc by agreeing that the 2A should remain sacrosanct - even if the original wording is nearly impossible to objectively understand.
It is time for either a repeal (doubtful this will happen) or at least a rewrite in clearer language.
A "well regulated militia"? What does this mean? Is that a police department, an army?
It should be clear that in this day and age, it does condone a group of self-appointed armed civilians who are protecting nothing but their own extreme agenda.
Stop agreeing with the right that the 2A is a foundational piece of our rights - it is not, anymore than slavery, denying women voting rights, or not guaranteeing civil rights for all Americans was - all issues that had to be amended.
We have a epidemic of gun violence in this country unlike anywhere else on the planet. It has to stop - even at the expense of misplaced and misunderstood "god-given" rights.

[highplainsdem]

53. Response to Stevens from NRA TV:

Link to tweet

[OliverQ]

58. Gun nuts are going crazy over this.

Lots saying now they're refusing to vote Democrat in Mid-terms.

I really hate this country. It's full of absolute morons.

[highplainsdem]

65. Those gun nuts were already crazy, and anyone that moronic wouldn't vote for Dems anyway.

This op-ed is by ONE retired SC justice, who's a Republican appointed by a Republican president.

It is NOT a position that Dems are running on, that has been part of the Democratic Party platform.

Gun nuts have often accused Dems of wanting to get rid of the 2nd Amendment. They weren't right then, as far as most Dems are concerned, and they aren't right now.

No one's saying Dems have to agree with Stevens. But he has a valid point of view, it's carefully reasoned, and it offers something to weigh against the extreme RW view that ANY gun control is bad.

Dems have been hurt by allowing RWers to move the goalposts for decades now, making their extreme positions seem more "moderate" only because their most extreme positions are so far right.

I'm glad Stevens has made such a thoughtful case for repealing the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I don't think we need to do that, though Heller should be overturned. But Stevens' views on the amendment itself deserve to be heard and considered.

[OliverQ]

71. I'm just hoping people don't freak out and stop supporting Dems in mid-terms

because their paranoia makes them think Dems will take their guns.

[highplainsdem]

56. Joy Reid tweet about this:

Link to tweet

Retired Justice Stevens goes there. There will be hysterics, and that’s unfortunate because this country desperately needs a sensible discussion on guns (and a rational social compact). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html …

[pamdb]

72. repeal the 2nd

I completely agree. The 2nd, as it was intended, is no longer applicable. We don't have militias. If you want to belong to a militia, join the National Guard. No one is saying you cannot have a gun or rifle, you just have to apply for it. If you're a hunter, you can get rifle, if you have a dangerous job or have been threatened as in a domestic
situation, you can apply for one. But every idiot in the country who has $137 should not be able to walk into a store and buy a semi automatic weapon. I think we have shown, as a people, we are neither intelligent enough nor mature enough to handle firearms willy nilly. People in England and Australia still have firearms, it's just you have to apply for one. You have to get a license to drive a car, I fail to see why you don't need a license to own a gun.

[grumpyduck]

75. I've said before and I'll say it again

It's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it unless someone would care to convince me otherwise.

This whole thing about gun control is not about gun control. As far as the NRA is concerned, it's an advertising campaign to get people to buy more guns and increase production and profits for their gun-maker clients. They ARE a lobby for gun makers in addition to supporting other goals.

This morning I saw a clip about the NRA now suggesting having two armed teachers in each classroom, the idea being that even if one of them is "bad," there will be a "good" one to save the day. So not only armed teachers, but armed teachers in every classroom, and not only that, but two armed teachers in every classroom. That's a lot of guns and ammo being sold. What's next? Armed guards at McDonald's?

I think former Justice Stevens is correct in that this is a fraud, but it seems to be that he fell for the ad campaign too. Either that, or he's in on it -- and I HOPE I'm wrong on this one.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

82. I hope there are no "unintended consequences" of pushing this.

I'd guess 1) it will fail
2) it will cost Dem seats in the fall elections
3) it will pull Remington Arms out of bankruptcy

[Skittles]

83. at the very least it needs to be rewritten so gun humping idiots can understand

[EX500rider]

91. Here's all it would take:

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of members present—if a quorum exists—in both the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States Congress; or

A two-thirds (supermajority) vote of a national convention called by Congress at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states.

To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:

The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
State ratifying conventions in three-fourths (at present 38) of the states.


Good luck getting 38 States to sign off on that....

Also even if you could abolish the 2nd, 44 States have a RKBA in their Constitutions also.

[floWteiuQ]

99. I agree

Pass some laws limiting weapons or repeal the amendment.

[yurbud]

109. He is doing what most elected Democrats don't:

starting negotiations way above what you would be willing to settle for, so when the other guy gives you what you actually want, he feels like he got away with something.