Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[jmyrlefuller]

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

March 27, 2018

This weekend’s marches make it clear: To enact real gun control, we need to change the Constitution.

(excerpt)

[skeeter]

The right to individual self-defense is no more explicitly stated in the Constitution than the individual rights of privacy and self-determination that undergird the abortion right.  Each has been found Constitutionally protected by a decision of the Supreme Court.  But, in each case,  the right has been subjected to political attack,  and it is naïve to assume that the political blowback over the "judge-made" abortion right won't be replicated with respect to the "judge-made" individual RKBA.   

Better to address the predicate clause directly by means of a Constitutional amendment that ratifies Heller.  Otherwise,  you'll see the next Dem President and Congress ratify justices that will overturn it.   

Your point here would be more credible if you weren't excoriating gunowners here immediately following the Parkland shooting for being 'selfish' for not accepting yet more state mandated limits to gun ownership.

[txradioguy]

The 2A is a flawed amendment,  but it doesn't need to be repealed.  Rather, it should be clarified to extend to the individual right to self-defense.   Arguably, the individual right to RKBA depends on the whim of a fickle court majority, no different than the abortion right.   The 2A's focus on the militia is its great flaw; it is about time to ratify and confirm by Constitutional amendment the Heller decision.

It's only flawed to those that wish to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

To those of us without a zeal to repress Constitutional liberties "shall not infringe" is pretty clear and to the point.

[jmyrlefuller]

If you read what was said in its historical context, there is no flaw. The flaw exists in the distortions thereof and the semantic contortions those who have tried to make the words say something they do not.

Technically, it is a grammatically flawed amendment. A vindictive court could in theory throw it out as incomprehensible and senseless.

The only clear part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Assuming that no court uses the grammatical gobbledygook ahead of it to strike the whole amendment down, that should be set in stone.

The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

[edpc]

The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

That's why the argument goes back to original intent.  We were not supposed to have a large, permanent standing army.  That's a relatively new aspect, since the end of WWII.

[aligncare]

It's only flawed to those that wish to take firearms out of the hands of law abiding citizens.

To those of us without a zeal to repress Constitutional liberties "shall not infringe" is pretty clear and to the point.

Where did he say that? Or, is that another misinterpretation?

[Cyber Liberty]

Where did he say that? Or, is that another misinterpretation?

Virtually every word he says on this subject involves some scheme to infringe on the right, while over-protesting for the RKBA.  @txradioguy's interpretation appears pretty clear to me.

[INVAR]

Better to address the predicate clause directly by means of a Constitutional amendment that ratifies Heller.  Otherwise,  you'll see the next Dem President and Congress ratify justices that will overturn it.   

They have  no power to overturn an Amendment.  There is no justification to have a Constitutional Amendment to address your silly 'predicate clause' argument, because it would not matter anyway.  Those of you hellbent on repeal or regulating the right to the point of irrelevance, will not be deterred by what is written or amended as we continually see demonstrated.

Those intent on abolishing the right of the little people to have the ability to resist the state and the criminal under the guise of public safety will disregard any language or 'clarification'.

Your 'living Constitution' pals are going to push for repeal no matter what, and it doesn't matter what anyone says, does, writes or argues.  It comes down to a very simple reality: how many thousands or millions of Americans will the they  empower the government to kill in order to feel 'safe' from their neighbors and countrymen they do not trust with liberty?

You're so full of shit.   I know you relish the thought of armed insurrection, but the mechanism exists to ratify and confirm the individual RKBA without having to "die on your feet".   

Being willing to die on my feet against creeps that want to 'reasonably regulate' a right out of existence or abolish it altogether is the entire reason and purpose of the Second Amendment.  A lawless government empowered by a morally bankrupt people are not going to be deterred by any 'laws' you want to add to the ones they are intent on eradicating.

But I invite you to demonstrate your stupidity by testing whether or not we are willing to die on our feet free, rather than to comply with what you and your compatriots intend to do.

Denninger is exactly correct:

...anyone demanding more gun control or a repeal of the Second Amendment must answer the following question:

What are you going to do with the very large number of people who will not comply so long as they are alive?

In order to secure those weapons you are going to have to murder them.  And it is not a few people who you will have to murder either -- conservatively we are talking about several million Americans, or several hundred years worth of firearm homicide victims.

If you are not willing to commit several million murders then shut up right now, because that's what you're going to have to do to get what you want.  And if you are willing to do so then shut up about this being related to the murders committed today, including murders committed in a school, since you are willing to commit several hundred times more of those very same murders to get what you want.

Finally, one last point: The first such murders, if you get what you want, will be like shooting fish in a barrel.

As soon as those first murders take place, either by you directly or those who work for the government it won't be like that.  Nobody with a working brain will sit quietly at home and wait to be slaughtered along with their loved ones, including their children.

Nobody with the mental capacity greater than that of a young child would ever intentionally set the nation upon that course and nobody (myself included) will want to live in a nation where the inevitable outcome of that course of action will lead yet this is exactly the course of action those who wish to repeal the 2nd Amendment or start stripping weapons from the population on any material basis is advocating for.

We the people must demand that Stevens, David Hogg and the rest answer to this question before one more march takes place or one more TV appearance occurs and we must not stop demanding that answer so as to understand exactly what their true motivations are and expose said motivations to the public so they can be judged appropriately for what they are.

The motivation clearly is not to reduce the homicide rate as the demanded course of action is defined by the willingness and declaration of intent to murder millions of Americans in a wholesale slaughter.

[Meldrew]

Even if we do as Jazz suggests and reword the Second to eliminate any vagueries it won't particularly matter.  The left will just set about to twist and misconstrue that phrasing.  The goal for them is civilian disarmament.  Over 22,000 laws regulating the right that "shall not be infringed" makes that pretty obvious. 

[txradioguy]

Even if we do as Jazz suggests and reword the Second to eliminate any vagueries it won't particularly matter.  The left will just set about to twist and misconstrue that phrasing.  The goal for them is civilian disarmament.  Over 22,000 laws regulating the right that "shall not be infringed" makes that pretty obvious.

Exactly. Well said.

[Cyber Liberty]

They have  no power to overturn an Amendment.  There is no justification to have a Constitutional Denninger is exactly correct:

What are you going to do with the very large number of people who will not comply so long as they are alive?

In order to secure those weapons you are going to have to murder them.  And it is not a few people who you will have to murder either -- conservatively we are talking about several million Americans, or several hundred years worth of firearm homicide victims.

Finally, one last point: The first such murders, if you get what you want, will be like shooting fish in a barrel.

As soon as those first murders take place, either by you directly or those who work for the government it won't be like that.  Nobody with a working brain will sit quietly at home and wait to be slaughtered along with their loved ones, including their children.

This right here.  Oh sure, the first people you violently disarm may very well go easily after being taken by surprise, but after the shock wears off, it's "shit's on" against the grabbers.  Let's hope the government drones they send discover quickly that getting home safe from work every day will no longer be so assured.

[LMAO]

As much as we probably don’t like to do it and wish we didn’t have to, human nature will always make it necessary to fight to preserve liberty.

 There’s always going to be that struggle of those that want to be left alone in peace and freedom versus those that want power and control over  their fellow man. This is nothing new and will continue for as long as Humans dominate the earth.

[skeeter]

Technically, it is a grammatically flawed amendment. A vindictive court could in theory throw it out as incomprehensible and senseless.

The only clear part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Assuming that no court uses the grammatical gobbledygook ahead of it to strike the whole amendment down, that should be set in stone.

The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Thats because people usually wrongly connect the first sentence to the second. Read it again in the context Noah Webster implies:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

[Jazzhead]

Your point here would be more credible if you weren't excoriating gunowners here immediately following the Parkland shooting for being 'selfish' for not accepting yet more state mandated limits to gun ownership.

I don't support "limits" on gun ownership.  I don't support assault weapon bans,  or other limitations on the numbers of guns one may want to acquire.  I understand that for many of you gun ownership is a hobby and pastime.  I understand - I enjoy collecting stuff, too (in my case, jazz records).

What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars.   Requiring guns to be registered and transferred in documented transactions does not "limit" gun ownership, any more than registration of automobiles to their lawful owners impedes my ability to own the cars I want and can afford.   

[INVAR]

As much as we probably don’t like to do it and wish we didn’t have to, human nature will always make it necessary to fight to preserve liberty.

 There’s always going to be that struggle of those that want to be left alone in peace and freedom versus those that want power and control over  their fellow man. This is nothing new and will continue for as long as Humans dominate the earth.

Except somehow idiots think that we in this country have evolved beyond history and human nature and can simply update an Amendment and 'reasonably regulate' the rights they say are too dangerous and a public liability in the hands of the little people.  The concept of people willing to die in defense of those things they think are subject to reasonable regulation is absurd to them.

[skeeter]

I don't support "limits" on gun ownership.  I don't support assault weapon bans,  or other limitations on the numbers of guns one may want to acquire.  I understand that for many of you gun ownership is a hobby and pastime.  I understand - I enjoy collecting stuff, too (in my case, jazz records).

What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars.   Requiring guns to be registered and transferred in documented transactions does not "limit" gun ownership, any more than registration of automobiles to their lawful owners impedes my ability to own the cars I want and can afford.

The problem is its not a hobby or pasttime. Its a God given un-enfringable right considered important enough by the writers of our guiding document to be specifically enumerated immediately following the right of free speech, as if accenting it.

The State has already shown us its ass on this issue. Its clear where they would take us, one step at a time or otherwise.

We simply do not trust them to be honest about their intentions. Nor did the founders think we should. Nor should any people who intend to remain free.

[INVAR]

What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars.   Requiring guns to be registered and transferred in documented transactions does not "limit" gun ownership, any more than registration of automobiles to their lawful owners impedes my ability to own the cars I want and can afford.

You're so full of shit.  Anyone with a working brain that ever read the lessons of history understands with complete clarity that licensing and registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation.

It's only those full of shit with evil intent that insist that they want no such thing.  Yes you do - despite what bullshit you say to the contrary.

We are not going to comply with any of these suggestions of yours anymore than we would comply with a confiscation order.

The question is going to be how many people in your government are going to be willing to die on their feet attempting to impose what you intend upon those willing to die on their feet resisting you?

[thackney]

As much as we probably don’t like to do it and wish we didn’t have to, human nature will always make it necessary to fight to preserve liberty.

 There’s always going to be that struggle of those that want to be left alone in peace and freedom versus those that want power and control over  their fellow man. This is nothing new and will continue for as long as Humans dominate the earth.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants.

From Thomas Jefferson to William Smith
Paris, November 13, 1787
https://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/96oct/obrien/blood.htm

[Jazzhead]

Even if we do as Jazz suggests and reword the Second to eliminate any vagueries it won't particularly matter.  The left will just set about to twist and misconstrue that phrasing.  The goal for them is civilian disarmament.  Over 22,000 laws regulating the right that "shall not be infringed" makes that pretty obvious.

Rights can be regulated, they cannot be taken away.   We have freedom of speech and assembly, but you need to get a permit in many places to hold a public demonstration.   Women have the right to choose, but some states now limit the right to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. 

The gun right (like any other) can be regulated,  but not denied.   Myself,  I support licensure and registration, and all transactions being properly documented.   None of those things infringe on the right, as compared to D.C.'s de facto ban on handguns that was overturned by Heller.

What is hanging by a thread is the Heller decision's ruling that the 2A right extends to the individual right to keep arms for self-defense, outside the context of a militia.   That right is therefore Constitutionally protected, but also fragile because a court five years from now,  with a majority appointed by Dems, could easily overturn Heller.   That is the vulnerability that gun owners need to try to correct.   

How many folks here have voted to elect candidates who have pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade?   The individual gun right is just as vulnerable to political exploitation, folks.   

[thackney]

I don't support "limits" on gun ownership.  I don't support assault weapon bans,  or other limitations on the numbers of guns one may want to acquire.  I understand that for many of you gun ownership is a hobby and pastime.  I understand - I enjoy collecting stuff, too (in my case, jazz records).

What I support is licensure and registration, same as with cars.

So as the same with cars, ownership does not require licensure and registration.  For collectors, those that keep only on their business and property, no requirement at all.  Only if they want to be used in the public paid roads do they need a licensure and registration.

[Jazzhead]

You're so full of shit.  Anyone with a working brain that ever read the lessons of history understands with complete clarity that licensing and registration ALWAYS leads to confiscation. 

Licensure and registration hasn't led to the confiscation of cars.   

The question is going to be how many people in your government are going to be willing to die on their feet attempting to impose what you intend upon those willing to die on their feet resisting you?

Stop huffing paint.   

[Jazzhead]

So as the same with cars, ownership does not require licensure and registration.  For collectors, those that keep only on their business and property, no requirement at all.  Only if they want to be used in the public paid roads do they need a licensure and registration.

Licensure and registration is appropriate whenever a gun or a motor vehicle is to be used for its intended purpose.   

[skeeter]

Rights can be regulated, they cannot be taken away.   We have freedom of speech and assembly, but you need to get a permit in many places to hold a public demonstration.   Women have the right to choose, but some states now limit the right to the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. 

The gun right (like any other) can be regulated,  but not denied.   Myself,  I support licensure and registration, and all transactions being properly documented.   None of those things infringe on the right, as compared to D.C.'s de facto ban on handguns that was overturned by Heller.

What is hanging by a thread is the Heller decision's ruling that the 2A right extends to the individual right to keep arms for self-defense, outside the context of a militia.   That right is therefore Constitutionally protected, but also fragile because a court five years from now,  with a majority appointed by Dems, could easily overturn Heller.   That is the vulnerability that gun owners need to try to correct.   

How many folks here have voted to elect candidates who have pledged to appoint judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade?   The individual gun right is just as vulnerable to political exploitation, folks.

Of course this argument has been used in the case of each and every one of the the laws enacted 'regulating' firearms ownership to the present time, and will continue to be used right up until the time the State passes a law requiring all privately owned arms be kept under lock and key at some government sanctioned gun club.

And even then they'll still be telling us they haven't 'infringed' upon our right to own firearms.

[the_doc]

Technically, it is a grammatically flawed amendment. A vindictive court could in theory throw it out as incomprehensible and senseless.

The only clear part of the amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Assuming that no court uses the grammatical gobbledygook ahead of it to strike the whole amendment down, that should be set in stone.

The sentence starts off on one subject (a well-regulated militia), continues with a descriptor (being necessary), but has no predicate before shifting off to another sentence with the subject "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor, used to agree that the Amendment is grammatically flawed, but after he did massive research on other legal documents produced by the colonies, he discovered that the American colonists followed a tradition of presenting an inarguably clear "objective" clause along with a single "justification clause."  More importantly, Volokh noticed that the justification clause would ordinarily present only a single reason of arguably numerous reasons for a given law.

So, Volokh no longer regards the wording of the 2nd Amendment as grammatically weird.  It is stylistically odd from our modern standpoint, but Volokh is now a gun rights guy who believes that the "originalist intent" is very clearly found ONLY in the objective clause--which clause obviously presents the self-evident, God-given right to self defense.

John Paul Stevens is a political reprobate, likely a spiritual reprobate as well--since he has no grasp of a God-given right.

[thackney]

Licensure and registration is appropriate whenever a gun or a motor vehicle is to be used for its intended purpose.

You know that is a false claim.  Cars, trucks, etc are only registered based upon where they are used, not how.



It isn't because of a lack of danger, that those above are not registered nor carry liability insurance.