Wow. I can't even believe this is a topic. I passionately want stronger gun control, but I never, ever considered even the possibility of abolishing the second amendment. Every time someone called for sane controls on assault weapons, some idiot would scream YOU CAN'T ABOLISH THE SECOND AMENDMENT! and I would reflexively think, Idiot. No one said that.

But I guess the most avid gun collectors were listening to rumblings that were off my radar and responding to that, instead.

I think, by the NRA's obscene fight against sane controls, flat out abolishment is now a serious possibility on the mainstream horizon. And I love it. Karma--what a bitch, huh?

 

John Paul Stevens:
Repeal the Second Amendment
Image
A musket from the 18th century, when the Second Amendment was written, and an assault rifle of today.CreditTop, MPI, via Getty Images, bottom, Joe Raedle/Getty Images .


By John Paul Stevens

March 27, 2018
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. 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.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second 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.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.



John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.

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

 

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has caused a stir by calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment. It was a call that young protesters should heed if they want to work for real change — and not simply be hijacked by political figures wanting to harness their energy and votes. Putting the merits of a repeal aside, Stevens, 97, was doing something that has been missing in the aftermath of the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Fla. He was being honest. These kids have been sold a bill of goods by politicians exaggerating not just the impact of proposed legislative changes but their actual ability to significantly curtail this individual right.

Most of us were moved in watching millions of young people rally around the country to demand real change. David Hogg, 17, spoke for many Parkland survivors in proclaiming during the March for Our Lives that “We need to see real action from lawmakers. They have to actually mean it, take meaningful steps to save children’s lives.” The problem is that both Democrats and Republicans have long worked in Congress to bar such steps from being taken. It is not just the power of the National Rifle Association (NRA). Around 30% of Americans own guns. There are over 357 million guns in this country — more than the population itself. Politicians (including Democrats) do not want to significantly challenge a right that three out of 10 citizens not only support but invested money to enjoy. Thus, even when massacres occurred with Democrats in control of Congress, no major changes were passed.

In response to the latest protests, politicians have promised changes that would either not have prevented the Florida massacre or reduced the carnage. One is a ban on “bump stocks” allowing for a semi-automatic weapon to fire more like an automatic weapon. Experts however have noted that a shooter can achieve roughly the same rate of fire with rapid finger pulls or low tech options like rubber bands. Likewise, limits on the size of magazines will do little more than forcing more swaps of magazines — something most shooters can easily do in seconds. Other changes like waiting periods ignore the long-planning used in most of these massacres.

More importantly, politicians are being less than forthcoming about the constitutional limits for any reforms. After the decision in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, the Second Amendment is now viewed as affording an individual right of gun ownership. Such fundamental rights normally require the government to meet the highest possible burden in showing not just a compelling interest but narrowly tailored means to achieve that interest. Even limitations requiring the gun owners to show “good reason” for a concealed carry permit have been struck down by lower courts after Heller. As the Supreme Court stated in Heller, “If all that was required to overcome the right to keep and bear arms was a rational basis, the Second Amendment would be redundant with the separate constitutional prohibitions on irrational laws, and would have no effect.”

That is why I have previously stated that, absent a repeal, these students are being misled about the chances for substantial limitations on gun ownership. Neither side in this debate is eager for these young people to hear that message. For Democrats, the frustration and anger of these kids represents a promising voting block going into the midterm elections. For Republicans, any focus on a repeal drives an instant wedge between young voters and their party platform. It is much better to keep these kids focused on shiny legislative objects like bump stocks and not the constitutional realities of gun control.

Gun owners are being sold a different bill of goods. While there are good-faith reasons to oppose a repeal, it is not true that a 28th Amendment repealing the Second Amendment would leave gun owners without protection. First and foremost, citizens are still afforded due process in the exercise of privileges and enjoyments of benefits. The standard would be lower (a rational basis test) but there would still be a process of judicial review. Second, the greatest protection of gun rights has not been constitutional but political. Indeed, until 2008, there was not a recognized individual right of gun ownership but it was still extremely difficult to pass significant gun control. Finally, a 28th Amendment could include not just a repeal but positive language imposing additional protections for gun ownership.

For young protesters, Stevens’ moment of honesty comes with a sobering reality. Forcing a bump stock ban is much easier than securing a constitutional amendment. It is currently doubtful that two-thirds of both houses would support a constitutional amendment, let alone three-fourths of the needed states to ratify. The alternative under Article V of a Constitutional Convention (circumventing Congress) imposes the same daunting prospects.

This is all by design. It is not supposed to be easy. James Madison explained in The Federalist No. 43 that the Framers did not want to make the “Constitution too mutable.” However, he also said that they did not want to foreclose such changes “which might perpetuate its discovered faults.” For those who view the Second Amendment as a “discovered fault,” real change will require real work.

If it is real reform that these students want, they must convince their fellow citizens, as Justice Joseph Story once said, that part of the Constitution “has become wholly unsuited to the circumstances of the nation.”

It is not impossible but it is not easy. Circumstances and politics change. However, what does not change is the process for achieving real change. Even if the Second Amendment is, as Stevens describes, a “relic of the 18th Century,” it will take more than rhetoric to remove such a relic in the 21st Century.

Jonathan Turley, a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors, is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, where he teaches constitutional and tort law. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opin...amendment-march-our-lives-students/463644002/

 

Bots are pushing the story? I thought it would get plenty of comment from actual people--pretty much everyone. That's a scary idea that it would boomerang and make people vote even more pro-NRA, but good point, tink.

For me, in my liberal bastion, the possibility is a joyful siren call, even if it doesn't happen in my lifetime.

 

Also, LOL on your description of John Paul Stevens, retired Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the Judicial Branch, he has the status and dignity of a retired President, and being old doesn't make him someone to jeer at. He is all there.

 

I agree that it would be impossible to take away guns. I haven't seen the claim that anyone would be going door to door, but I don't doubt it is being said.

Police here routinely have offers to pay people to turn in their guns, but that wouldn't account for many. What I've read is that most gun sales would stop, except people could apply for guns for sporting purposes.

I figure if it were genuinely completely impossible to repeal the 2nd, gun advocates wouldn't keep screaming about not abolishing it, as they would have no reason to fret.

I appreciate repeal would be an arduous and rancorous process. Still, I like that the possibility is out there now, sending down roots.

I think Prohibition was the only amendment ever to be abolished, so I looked it up. That took only about 10 months from proposal to approval, but of course that was uncontroversial.

 

Visionary to me, and could help everything.

 

Smerconish agrees with all of you, for the same reasons you have given, but I was interested to see that the number of people who would be relieved to have the 2nd abolished may be around 20 percent. To me, that is a high number, considering that repeal is a novel proposal. (Well, at least to me!)


Not surprisingly, Stevens set off a firestorm about whether the idea was a good one and whether liberals really want to take away people’s right to own a gun (an Economist/YouGov poll suggests that 20% of people support the idea).

http://www.smerconish.com/michael/justice-stevens-amendment/

 

I couldn't see the poll link above because my free WAPO views for the month are up, so I googled to get to the poll.

In this story, I could get to the poll, but I don't see where the question has been specifically asked. Anyway, here is an interesting quote from this story.


Josh Chafetz, a professor at Cornell Law School, said that Democrats could focus their energy instead on winning back the White House and Senate. Then, they could “appoint judges who share Stevens’s views and who will therefore narrow and eventually overturn Heller,” Chafetz wrote in a tweet. .

In a statement Tuesday, NRA Executive Director Chris Cox called Stevens’ proposal a “radical idea.”

Stevens’ arguments is evidence that “the gun-control lobby is no longer distancing themselves from the radical idea of repealing the Second Amendment and banning all firearms,” Cox said.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-difficult-would-it-be-to-repeal-the-second-amendment