John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment

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

He can say what he wants. He is a private citizen now. I find it worse when a sitting justice (RBG) starts mouthing off with her opinions about politics.

What is terrible is that people may give his opinion added weight because of his former position. It is the same as the former soldiers saying they don't think civilians should own MSR. The opinions should not be given added weight because of the former occupation.
 
Terrorist!

Actually, he's a Constitutionalist. His motive notwithstanding, his assessment that the only legitimate gun control action would be a Constitutional Amendment is spot on.

This modern gun debate is a Constitutional Crisis, the likes of which we haven't had since the Civil War. If the Constitution is amended over it, there will be another Civil War.
 
his assessment that the only legitimate gun control action would be a Constitutional Amendment is spot on.
If the Constitution is amended over it, there will be another Civil War.

I agree with that, but ask yourself this: "How many more school shootings would we need to pass a Constitutional Abolition of 2A?" 1, 10, 100?
And: "Wouldn't We already be in the midst of a Civil War at that point?"

I know I would.
 
Actually, he's a Constitutionalist. His motive notwithstanding, his assessment that the only legitimate gun control action would be a Constitutional Amendment is spot on.

This modern gun debate is a Constitutional Crisis, the likes of which we haven't had since the Civil War. If the Constitution is amended over it, there will be another Civil War.
He may be a Constitutionalist but he doesn’t like the Second Amendment and wants it repealed
 
Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.
 
Privileges and Immunities Clause states "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." In the Slaughter-House Cases (1873), the Supreme Court recognized a difference between a person's rights as a U.S. citizen and their rights under state law. The ruling held that state laws could not impede a person's federal rights. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), which overturned a Chicago ban on handguns, Justice Clarence Thomas cited this clause in his opinion supporting the ruling. numerous lawsuits have arisen that have referenced the 14th Amendment. The fact that the amendment uses the word "state" in the Privileges and Immunities Clause -- along with interpretation of the Due Process Clause -- has meant state power and federal power is subject to the Bill of Rights.
 
Lets just say for a minute that they do. Total gun ban... who is gonna come and get them? Sure, there are some folks that will just hand them over, but who is gonna go knocking on doors in say... Dutch Harbor Alaska? How about Tifton Georgia or Bangyersista Kentucky?
Good f***in luck with that kid. And in most of rural "Merica, local law enforcement is going to tell you to pound sand. So now you are talking about sending in the Feds?
These morons have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You would be looking at slaughtering large numbers of Americans, and I don't think they have the stomach or the balls for it.
 
When debating with people who oppose Second Amendment freedoms, no matter what they say or what red herring they introduce, the responses should be as follows:

  1. Can you define the English term “well regulated” as it was used and understood in the 18th century?
  2. Can you define the English term, “the people” as it was used and understood in the 18th century?
  3. Can you define the English term, “bear arms” as it was used and understood in the 18th century?
  4. Can you definite the English word “infringed?”
All arguments in favor of gun control or against the Second Amendment are essentially moot, since the amendment itself indicates that the government is in fact prohibited from infringing on this natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right. That being the case . . .

the government has no authority to alter, modify, amend or repeal the right to keep and bear arms by legislative action, executive order, or judicial review. End of discussion.

Talk all night if you must, the fact remains that the only legal recourse for those who oppose the RKBA is to use Article V of the Constitution to amend the Constitution itself. Meanwhile, retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has proposed that the Second Amendment be amended as follows:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.

It’s a shame Justice Stevens doesn’t know his history. During the debates leading up to the adoption of the Second Amendment, similarly intended wording was suggested. On September 9, 1789, it was proposed that “for the common defense (sic)” be inserted following “bear arms”, but that modification was defeated. Instead, the Senate passed: “A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Then there’s this: the Bill of Rights was ratified on December 15, 1791. And in the 222 years since there have been only 17 additional amendments, not one of which alters any of the original ten, much less repeals them. Realistically, since these are natural rights, even a successful effort to repeal their Constitutional protection wouldn’t repeal or revoke the right itself, only its Constitutional protection.

Here are the Amendments that followed the Bill of Rights:

11. Suits against states
12. Election of the President
13. Abolishment of Slavery
14. Due Process, Equal Protection
15. Voting Rights
16. Income Tax
17. Direct Election of Senators
18. Prohibition of Alcohol
20. Women’s Voting Rights
20. Terms of Office
21. Repeal of Prohibition
22. Term Limits
23. Appointment of Electors
24. Abolishment of Poll Tax
25. Succession to Office
26. Voting Age
27. Compensation of Legislators

So in all these years there have been only 27 amendments to the Constitution and of those only one — the 18th Amendment prohibiting the production of alco — has been subsequently repealed. By coincidence this is the only amendment ever ratified with the intention of the federal government telling the American people something they were prohibited from doing. (The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery can hardly be viewed in the same light as a prohibition against alcohol.)

Considering that the intention of the Constitution itself was for the people to tell the federalgovernment what it was authorized to do (Article I, Section 8), and in the Bill of Rights to tell the federal government what it was NOT authorized to do, the existence of the 18thAmendment was in itself anachronistic. It’s no wonder that this is the one amendment that it was later repealed.

So all of the amendments — other than the 18th and 21st (prohibition and repeal) — were alterations, adjustments, or additions to the establishment and operating instructions granted by the people to the federal government. Therefore, any attempt to modify or repeal any of the Bill of Rights must be considered as a major precedent in Constitutional modification. While Article V gives instructions on the amendment process and doesn’t limit what may be amended, it does set a high bar for ratification (two-thirds of congress and three-fourths of the states).

While it seems highly unlikely that any attempt to modify or repeal the Second Amendment could meet this high standard, it must be understood that even the attempt to change one of the rights guaranteed and protected by the Constitution would be an admission that all of those enumerated rights were subject to modification at the whim of the majority, a dangerous precedent indeed. So perhaps a new amendment really does need to be proposed:

An enumeration of certain inalienable natural rights being necessary to the continued liberty of a free people, no branch of government nor any government agency may modify, restrict, tax or attempt to repeal any of the first ten amendments to this Constitution.
 
Lets just say for a minute that they do. Total gun ban... who is gonna come and get them? Sure, there are some folks that will just hand them over, but who is gonna go knocking on doors in say... Dutch Harbor Alaska? How about Tifton Georgia or Bangyersista Kentucky?
Good f***in luck with that kid. And in most of rural "Merica, local law enforcement is going to tell you to pound sand. So now you are talking about sending in the Feds?
These morons have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. You would be looking at slaughtering large numbers of Americans, and I don't think they have the stomach or the balls for it.
...and this is precisely why, if shit starts getting heavy, there is no remedy other than partition. And shit could very well start getting heavy.
 
My lawyer, (now retired,) said that 2A was a collective right.

I said, “So your saying the founders actually thought it necessary to enumerate that the military could have guns?”

I loved discussing stuff with him.
 
if the 2nd doesn't apply to modern firearms then the 1st doesn't apply to modern communication devices (internet, phones, radios, etc) or MODERN religions (bye bye LDS (1830) and Jehovah's Witnesses (1870)) and definitely bye bye Scientology. Hmmmm... what else can we get rid of by repealing amendments?
 
if the 2nd doesn't apply to modern firearms then the 1st doesn't apply to modern communication devices (internet, phones, radios, etc) or MODERN religions (bye bye LDS (1830) and Jehovah's Witnesses (1870)) and definitely bye bye Scientology. Hmmmm... what else can we get rid of by repealing amendments?

Can we FINALLY get some sammiches around here?!
 
I love the way this thread is amping up!
And kudos to rchap36 for some most excellent posts!
~Matt
 
National Review reposting this 2015 piece:

Rant: Second Amendment Repeal | [site:name] | National Review

"Seriously, try it. Start the process. Stop whining about it on Twitter, and on HBO, and at the Daily Kos. Stop playing with some Thomas Jefferson quote you found on Google. Stop jumping on the news cycle and watching the retweets and viral shares rack up. Go out there and begin the movement in earnest. Don’t fall back on excuses. Don’t play cheap motte-and-bailey games. And don’t pretend that you’re okay with the Second Amendment in theory, but you’re just appalled by the Heller decision. You’re not. Heller recognized what was obvious to the amendment’s drafters, to the people who debated it, and to the jurists of their era and beyond: That “right of the people” means “right of the people,” as it does everywhere else in both the Bill of Rights and in the common law that preceded it. A Second Amendment without the supposedly pernicious Heller“interpretation” wouldn’t be any impediment to regulation at all. It would be a dead letter. It would be an effective repeal. It would be the end of the right itself. In other words, it would be exactly what you want! Man up. Put together a plan, and take those words out of the Constitution."
 
Since the Second Amendment did not create or grant any right concerning firearms, the right enumerated in the Amendment has to be an existing right separate from the Amendment. Thus, repealing the Second Amendment would not eliminate any right because the right enumerated in the Amendment was not created by the Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms exists independent of the Constitution or the Second Amendment.

Of course it does (via natural rights, aka, only things that people who have crossed the bridge actually understand) but in the real world that is functionally meaningless... once it's gone then the government no longer has to even
pay lip service to it being a legitimate obstacle for them to overcome in order to oppress the public. (although many here would argue they just piss on it whenever they want anyways, and that's an understandable viewpoint at this time... )

Well, it does mean one thing... if we're operating at that point, it means we've crossed over from the ballot box and onto the bullet box... there will still be voting, but perhaps from rooftops...

-Mike
 
Who would be responsible for protecting me and my family? You can't remove the 2A without removing my right to self-defense.
 
This might ring a bell:



Not suggesting or recommending it. Just pointing out that the DoI and C both acknowledge that they protect us, not subject us.
While the Declaration of Independence is wonderful, it is not the charter for our government. It's merely a break-up letter to England. If the drafting of a 28th amendment and it's ratification were to repeal the 2nd, that would be it. The unconstitutional becomes constitutional. That is the only correct interpretation of the Constitution being a living document. Through the amendment process there is no section that is beyond reproach. The only thing protecting it is the vast majority of opinion. Thus, completely idiotic ideas make it into the Constitution, such as the 17th and 18th amendments.
 
"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.”

It was uniformly understood by oppressive government officials....not by free thinking Americans. Isn't it strange the exact items the founding fathers said were off the table for the government are the exact freedoms they attack.

"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.”

An organization telling people who live in a free society that their rights are being infringed by the government is "fraud". Telling people to go out and exercise your constitutional freedoms is somehow fraud....coming from a government official.....let that sink in...

Burger is/was wrong and Stevens is an idiot.....The Second Amendment guarantees that a citizen's right to keep and bear arms has no limitations.

And the Supreme Court was unanimously WRONG.
 
My lawyer, (now retired,) said that 2A was a collective right.

I said, “So your saying the founders actually thought it necessary to enumerate that the military could have guns?”

I loved discussing stuff with him.

YOUR FORMER LAWYER WAS/IS A FVCKING MORON,!!!

The 2A is a clear and concise prohibition on the federal government from infringing on the natural right of people, and thereby protects their right to keep and bear arms.
 
While the Declaration of Independence is wonderful, it is not the charter for our government. It's merely a break-up letter to England. If the drafting of a 28th amendment and it's ratification were to repeal the 2nd, that would be it. The unconstitutional becomes constitutional. That is the only correct interpretation of the Constitution being a living document. Through the amendment process there is no section that is beyond reproach. The only thing protecting it is the vast majority of opinion. Thus, completely idiotic ideas make it into the Constitution, such as the 17th and 18th amendments.

Sorry, but the Constitution PROTECTS natural rights.

It does not GRANT them.
 
Back
Top Bottom