Former Supreme Court justice: ‘Repeal the Second Amendment’

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I think what Skeeter meant was the basic right can't be repealed irrerespective of the constitution. Since basic rights are natural/God-given, they can't be repealed.

Why would you limit it just to the Bill of Rights, especially given that at least some of them are more procedural than fundamental or God-given?

[Jazzhead]

I would never be in favor of beginning the process of modifying the second amendment because I could never trust the politicians involved in the process.

Those with ability to strengthen it would have the same ability to greatly weaken it.

Then I hope your not one of those who virtue-signals how he won't vote Republican.  Keeping the Senate and Presidency in GOP hands is the only way to prevent a change in the  SCOTUS that will overrule Heller.   

If, like me, you dislike the Constitution being held hostage to the vagaries of politics,  you'll support amending the Constitution to codify Heller.   

[Jazzhead]

This is from justice Thomas Cooley in the 1880s


"that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent.  The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.  But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.  The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. (my bold) But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order."

The Founders assumed that people would recognize the basic right of the people to keep and bear arms and that the militia would be drawn from those people.  They certainly didn't mean that only a militia, beholden to the state, would have the right to keep and bear arms.

For another view, read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller.   The individual right hangs by a thread. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Of course we need the Second Amendment.   Indeed, as I've said on this thread,  the primary need is to STRENGTHEN the 2A by codifying the Heller decision.   (See, e.g., former Justice Stevens' recent comments as well as his dissenting opinion in Heller,  which was joined by three other Justices,  and construed the 2A in terms of the militia, not any individual natural right of self defense.

But the hysteria on this thread is appalling to me.   I understand anger directed at proposals to confiscate firearms,  but the threats of violence here are extended to mere registration.   Registration is, without doubt,  consistent with both the 2A and Scalia's opinion in Heller which found the individual RKBA.  It is, simply put, not an infringement.   So the anarchists will start shooting even in the face of reforms that are PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL?   

That's insane.

I've tried to explain this eight ways from Sunday, so let me just make this short and simple and leave it right here: 

I don't trust the government, meaning the courts, lawyers and especially the politicians, to respect my Constitutional rights because I've seen violation after violation throughout my life.  A right as important as the one under discussion is non-negotiable to me, and I will not comply with the slightest infringement upon it.

That's it.  You may heap as much frosting as you like upon the cake, and it won't change my opinion one iota.  Call me, or others of the same opinion as me all the names you like.  You can stand on your head and point a Luger at me, and I will remain steadfast in my conviction.

[Jazzhead]

I think what Skeeter meant was the basic right can't be repealed irrerespective of the constitution. Since basic rights are natural/God-given, they can't be repealed.

I understand, but that's not the issue.  What's at stake is the repeal of the PROTECTION of those rights.

God won't protect your rights.   The Constitution will.   The Constitution exists to protect a citizen's natural rights from the arbitrary whims of government - that's why it has been interpreted over the years to protect such natural rights - even if not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution - as the rights of privacy and self-determination.  That's why abortion is legal.   

Heller likewise affirmed that among the Constitution's protected natural rights is the right to self defense of person, home and property.   But the dissent in Heller was based on the unique wording of the 2A - couching the right in terms of a COLLECTIVE endeavor (the militia).    No other such right's protection is couched in terms of the collective.   The 2A's protection of the individual right is, therefore, uniquely vulnerable to repeal since it rests on fragile court majority.     

[goatprairie]

For another view, read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller.   The individual right hangs by a thread.

Any reasonable person should conclude from the amendment itself and all the interpretations by non-leftist experts and not stooges like Stevens that it means what it says....the right of the people to keep and  bear arms shall not be infringed.
But you are correct...the amendment, and all amendments, are subject to reinterpretation by knaves and stooges....like Stevens.
For instance, a very large percentage of millennials do not believe the first amendment should cover speech that hurts other people's feelings.
So yes, the constitution is constantly under siege by aforesaid knaves and stooges.  One huge reason why people have guns.

[Jazzhead]

That's it.  You may heap as much frosting as you like upon the cake, and it won't change my opinion one iota.  Call me, or others of the same opinion as me all the names you like.  You can stand on your head and point a Luger at me, and I will remain steadfast in my conviction.

And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller.  Do that before you start shooting at people.   

[INVAR]

For another view, read Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion in Heller.   The individual right hangs by a thread.

No it doesn't.

The trust in this government to secure our rights is what is hanging by a thread.  Should they continue to break the covenant with stupid ideas like yours - We the people will no longer consent for them to govern us and we will work to abolish the forms to which this people are become accustomed.

My right to arms is not what hangs by a thread.  Your government having any legitimacy by which a free people are obligated to obey and trust is what hangs by that thread.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller.  Do that before you start shooting at people.

Codifying Heller is pointless because it can be repealed easily whenever Democrats gain control of the political branches.

Alternatively, any Surpreme Court that is willing to reverse/significantly modify Heller as constitutional law would be just as willing to interpret any codification of Heller in the same way.  Long term, the continuing viability of Heller is going to be up to the Courts no matter what a temporary GOP political majority may have to say about it.

[thackney]

Then I hope your not one of those who virtue-signals how he won't vote Republican.  Keeping the Senate and Presidency in GOP hands is the only way to prevent a change in the  SCOTUS that will overrule Heller.   

If, like me, you dislike the Constitution being held hostage to the vagaries of politics,  you'll support amending the Constitution to codify Heller.

I have exact same reply to this as before:

I would never be in favor of beginning the process of modifying the second amendment because I could never trust the politicians involved in the process.

Those with ability to strengthen it would have the same ability to greatly weaken it.

Nothing you have stated anywhere in this thread has changed my opinion of that in the slightest.

Cheers.

[Cyber Liberty]

And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller.  Do that before you start shooting at people.

It doesn't need "fixing."  The only flaws in the Second Amendment have been wrought by courts, lawyers and politicians.  What needs fixing is a court system, lawyers and politicians who think it's malleable.  No matter what is written on a piece of paper, it can be twisted by the aforementioned to the point the right becomes worthless.  Example:  You, yourself have made proposals that constitute an infringement on what is already in the Constitution.

If I allow the courts, lawyers and politicians to make one single change to it, I can rely upon them to make it worse.  If they make several changes they will damage it even further.  If they are allowed to "fix it" by rewriting it, then it will be gone forever and what we call a "government" will have well and truly lost the "consent of the governed."

Y'all may try to do so, but you will find that forcing compliance is an impossible task, the attempt will require you and others to do things you will find distasteful.  Are you up to it, counselor?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

And what I'm suggesting is to fix the flaw in the Constitution's protection of your right by codifying Heller.  Do that before you start shooting at people.

if this is your argument, let us all know why this did not happen when the Dems possessed that control?

[Jazzhead]

if this is your argument, let us all know why this did not happen when the Dems possessed that control?

The Heller opinion is recent (my guess without checking is 2010 or so).   To overturn that decision, the composition of the Court must change (and the right case must be presented to it).   

This was, of course, THE defining issue in the 2016 election.  So many of us swallowed hard and voted for Trump solely because of his promise to fill the Court's recent vacancy with a conservative.   (And so many of us were grateful that McConnell recognized the importance of the Court majority by refusing to entertain the Garland nomination.)

There is no greater divide between right and left right now than the composition of the courts.   For the right, more conservative jurists hold out the hope of overturning Roe v. Wade.  For the left, more liberal jurists hold out the hope of overturning Heller.   Both these important and valuable constitutional rights are being held hostage to politics.   That's why I favor amending the 2A to codify Heller, while we still have the chance to do so.       

[Jazzhead]

Y'all may try to do so, but you will find that forcing compliance is an impossible task, the attempt will require you and others to do things you will find distasteful.  Are you up to it, counselor?

We are not a tyranny.  We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives.   It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences.   But the nation doesn't revolve around you and your narrow priorities, and it is offensive to me as an American that you so vainly declare our grand experiment in self-government to be akin to a tyranny.   

It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law.   But I suggest your freedoms won't be better respected or protected in any other nation on earth.   

[thackney]

We are not a tyranny.  We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives.   It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences.   But the nation doesn't revolve around you and your narrow priorities, and it is offensive to me as an American that you so vainly declare our grand experiment in self-government to be akin to a tyranny.   

It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law.   But I suggest your freedoms won't be better respected or protected in any other nation on earth.

It is rather clear from the results in the liberal New York and California how a National Gun Registration would be received.

Far from being extreme, the "We will not comply" attitude appears to be overwhelming common in the general public in response to this topic.

In New York, Gun Owners Balk At New Handgun Database
https://www.npr.org/2018/01/31/581879702/in-new-york-gun-owners-balk-at-new-handgun-database

...As of the deadline, more than 81,000 people – or 20 percent of affected handgun owners in New York – haven't responded to the state's request....

[GrouchoTex]

So, I haven't posted in a few pages, I'll try this:

A few pages ago the subject went to abortion for awhile.
Abortion is one of the reasons I want the 2nd amendment to be left alone.
Do you all really think the the people who are staunchly pro-choice really care what happens to people who disagree with them?
Think about it. They take out lives at the tune of hundreds of thousands every year.
Now these people want to have "commonsense" gun laws.
If they have to do it by force, they will.
They think nothing of killing.

Call me crazy, okay, but you've all heard the rhetoric fed to these high school kids who are protesting.
They are talking about people like Rubio having blood on his hands, and worse.
Gun owners are being demonized to the point that we are now sub-human, and that is by design.
If we were real humans, they couldn't come after us, because that would be wrong.
(That's why they convince themselves the babies aren't real humans).
They have to make us seem like a weird alien life form, not at all in tuned with the real world.
...and it would be okay to eradicate that alien life form, right?

Let's throw in the squelching of the 1st amendment, at colleges across the country, that many of our tax dollars pay for.
If they don't like your opinion, they jut shut it down.
After all, if you were a real human being, you'd think like they do.

This is all just the beginning.

[INVAR]

We are not a tyranny. 

Your stupid ideas would make it so.  Which is why your schemes of registration or licensing are regarded as such.

We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives. 

That is made irrelevant when representatives violate their oaths of office to infringe upon and impose the schemes you propose upon our inalienable rights you say can be *reasonably regulated*.

It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences.

Bring it.  We're waiting for idiots like you to make that last mistake.  The tree of liberty is parched, so if you want to begin fertilizing it with it's natural manure - just push for someone in government to make your tyrannical ideas policy.

It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law.   

Such "law" has no authority except to be defied.  Disobedience to tyrants is obedience to God.  And we will be wholly disobedient to the bullshit ideas you push here should the Leftists in office take you up on enacting them.

[Gefn]

Hmmm. Bookmark

[Cyber Liberty]

We are not a tyranny.  We are a Constitutional Republic grounded in the rule of law and Peoples' freedom to choose their elected representatives.   It is your choice whether to defy the People and the law, and suffer the consequences.   But the nation doesn't revolve around you and your narrow priorities, and it is offensive to me as an American that you so vainly declare our grand experiment in self-government to be akin to a tyranny.   

It is your choice to give up your freedoms as an American by defying the law.   But I suggest your freedoms won't be better respected or protected in any other nation on earth.

This post from you does not encourage me in the slightest the courts, the lawyers and the politicians intend to protect my rights.  You can threaten to throw me in jail all you like, sir, I still will not comply.

[roamer_1]

But the hysteria on this thread is appalling to me.   I understand anger directed at proposals to confiscate firearms,  but the threats of violence here are extended to mere registration.   Registration is, without doubt,  consistent with both the 2A and Scalia's opinion in Heller which found the individual RKBA.  It is, simply put, not an infringement.   So the anarchists will start shooting even in the face of reforms that are PERFECTLY CONSTITUTIONAL?   

That's insane.

No, it isn't constitutional. Shall NOT be infringed.
And even if it were, it is useless. Utterly useless, to any task except for confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens, or make them liable for  crimes they did not commit... It will do nothing to the criminally inclined.

And I guarantee you - it will do nothing to me.

[INVAR]

No, it isn't constitutional. Shall NOT be infringed.

He calls it 'reasonably regulated'.

'Infringement' is dependent upon whatever mood he and his government are in.

And even if it were, it is useless. Utterly useless, to any task except for confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens, or make them liable for  crimes they did not commit... It will do nothing to the criminally inclined.

That's not the point and they don;t give a shit about the criminally inclined.  All their schemes are not intended to inhibit criminals, but to make criminals out of you and I.  He and his government do not trust us little people with the ability to defend ourselves or have the power to overthrow them when they overstep their limits.

So they use public safety, same as Hitler did to gin up the masses, to surrender their right to arms willingly - slowly with schemes like this before confiscation commences or is attempted.

[Jazzhead]

No, it isn't constitutional. Shall NOT be infringed.
And even if it were, it is useless. Utterly useless, to any task except for confiscating weapons from law abiding citizens, or make them liable for  crimes they did not commit...

If it's your gun, why shouldn't you be liable for harm committed with it?   Shouldn't you as the owner be responsible for ensuring the gun is safely stored,  and duly reported when lost, stolen or transferred?   

That's simply a matter of taking responsibility.  And no, it is not an infringement on your right to be legally responsible for the harm caused by the dangerous implements you choose to own.   

[roamer_1]

This is all just the beginning.

The day will come, it surely will.
It always does.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

That's why I favor amending the 2A to codify Heller, while we still have the chance to do so.     

Okay, I'm really confused by this post. @Jazzhead

You mentioned earlier that you wanted to "codify" Heller.  "Codify" means write into the U.S. Code, which means you're talking about writing a law.  But now, you just mentioned amending the Second Amendment itself, which means writing a constitutional amendment.   So are you talking about a law, or a constitutional amendment?

I addressed the former upthread, but as to the latter, there is no way in the universe we could get that kind of Amendment passed.  You, as a political realist, should be able to see that.  Anyway, while I personally disagree with an suggestion that registration is cause for armed rebellion, I also wouldn't consider for a moment complying with such a requirement should one be passed into law.  I'm not going to start shooting, but I'm not going to register, either.

[mountaineer]

New York Times has such a brilliant suggestion. Feel free to disagree. 

NYT Opinion  Verified account @nytopinion

A revised Second Amendment could read: "The right to bear arms for hunting, sport and recreation being a cherished and time-honored tradition, the exercise of this right by responsible persons for these purposes shall not be infringed" #NYTLetters
---------------------
Founding Ideals  @founding_ideals
17h17 hours ago
Replying to @nytopinion

Re-writing the amendment so that it would not fill it's original and intended purpose and also removing a strong protection for the other amendments seems like a REALLy bad idea. #SMDH
---------------------
J.R. Salzman  @jrsalzman
4h4 hours ago

J.R. Salzman Retweeted NYT Opinion

Yes, brilliant. The founding fathers, having just won their independence by taking up arms, wrote the Second Amendment about taking up arms... to go hunting.