|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 27, 2018, 08:48 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 2,451
|
John Paul Stevens: "Repeal the 2nd Amendment"
The retired Supreme Court justice is being quoted in news reports advocating the repeal of the Second Amendment. My take: Never forget that this is the goal of many. And all of our rights are just a couple judges away from gone.
It will be interesting to see if any of the "common sense" gun law folks reject this and reaffirm the Bill of Rights. |
March 27, 2018, 08:59 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
Quote:
I can't remember which U.S. Supreme Court justice said this but he advocated ruling on moral (non-legal) issues and that the American people wanted the court to do this. |
|
March 27, 2018, 09:08 AM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Thanks be to the deity of your choice that Mr. Stevens has retired.
|
March 27, 2018, 09:09 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Actually I prefer this to be the tactic taken. It acknowledges the power of the amendment while advocating for an approach that takes tremendous and widespread support which is unlikely to actually occur. Further it is a Constitutional approach and not some end run around it.
|
March 27, 2018, 09:10 AM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
I think JPS's pronouncement will draw little comment as a matter of charity. It's a weak analysis. The 2d Am. needs to be repealed because it has been misread by the Sup Ct. He thinks the amendment only covers what we now call the National Guard. He thinks repeal will be the simple fix for this problem. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...cond-amendment
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
March 27, 2018, 09:12 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eya_k4P-iEo
Old news - the clip shows Berger, a Conservative Republican denouncing the 2nd Amend. You make a great mistake if you think that justices decide purely on the law. They decide based on their personal belief structures and then look for legal precedents in many cases. Now someone will complain about this analysis. Too bad.
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
March 27, 2018, 09:24 AM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 2, 2013
Posts: 975
|
|
March 27, 2018, 09:31 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
I'd also echo Lohamn. The amendment process Stevens recommends above to get to the policy he prefers is constitutionally correct.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; March 27, 2018 at 09:41 AM. |
|
March 27, 2018, 10:19 AM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,820
|
A bill to repeal the 2nd Amendment has been introduced into Congress in virtually every session for decades now. Lots of bills to do stupid things are introduced every congressional session. Far too many do get traction, some even get passed.
To date, none of the "repeal the 2nd" bill has ever gone anywhere, and has never even made it to floor discussion. Other than an "oh look,..they're at it again.." no one pays any attention to those bills. (legal eagles, correct me if I'm wrong, please) I don't think Congress can repeal any Constitutional amendment. I think it takes another amendment to repeal a previous one. I believe the most that Congress can do is to propose an amendment to repeal a previous one, and it would have to be ratified by the states before it would have any effect. SO a bill to repeal the 2nd amendment is just so much hot air.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
March 27, 2018, 10:21 AM | #10 |
Junior member
Join Date: June 13, 2017
Posts: 429
|
Not going to happen...that ex-judge should be listed as anti American because that's about as far away and or the opposite of our constitution you can get.
|
March 27, 2018, 10:24 AM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
March 27, 2018, 11:15 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 5,631
|
Here are the details of the process for altering the Constitution, either to add an amendment or to repeal one, from Article V:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. In other words, there are two ways to do it - the first is initiated by Congress, which must pass a bill proposing an alteration. This requires a two-thirds majority in both House and Senate. If such a bill is passed, the matter is then passed to state legislatures. Three quarters of them need to ratify the proposed change in order for it to take effect. There's no time limit on the ratification process; it can and does drag on for years. The second way to change the Constitution is initiated by the states, not by Congress. It requires two thirds of the state legislatures to pass bills calling for a constitutional convention. Again, any amendments coming out of that process must still be ratified by three fourths of the states. The take-home message is that it's a very difficult thing to do -- as it should be.
__________________
Never let anything mechanical know you're in a hurry. |
March 27, 2018, 11:27 AM | #13 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 1, 2017
Posts: 391
|
Quote:
|
|
March 27, 2018, 11:38 AM | #14 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
It has been done. The 18th Amendment established prohibition (of alcoholic beverages). It was ratified in 1919. A few years later, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. The 21st was ratified in 1933.
|
March 27, 2018, 12:04 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Moving this to be a true amendment battle only favors us. Right now we are fighting "death by a thousand cuts" where even when we "win" we only manage to hold our ground and we watch the rights slip further and further away.
If we "move" the battle into that of a Constitutional amendment it is much harder for our opponents to win. It requires a super majority in Congress (or of the states) and an even larger majority of the states individually. Each state has one vote which eliminates the population advantages of states like California and New York. You would need 38 states so you only need 13 opposed to prevent it. Considering the movement of individual states towards shall issue permits or permitless carry you are simply not going to get it. Let's encourage those who favor further and further restriction to push for an amendment. It is after all the proper way to change our rules of governance anyways. |
March 27, 2018, 12:07 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Quote:
That statement just might be the most un-American thing I think I've read on here yet. |
|
March 27, 2018, 12:12 PM | #17 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
March 27, 2018, 12:14 PM | #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 10, 2008
Location: Alaska
Posts: 7,014
|
Quote:
I both agree that the Constitutions should be hard to amend, and I believe its time the 2nd Amendment be scrutinized. I know I am in a serious minority. 1. I believe the 2nd was an overreach of philosophy as opposed to evidence that armed militia or a single armed individual is going to do anything about government. 2. Technology has changed beyond their ability to envision. Gun owners were accountable people, guns were expensive. Ability of a single person to wreck mayhem with a single shot gun was severely limited. 3. The 2nd amendment has been hijacked to protect the second amendment, not it intent of protecting the rest of the rights. You hear no comments about freedom of speech, press, association, simply to have a gun to protect the right to have a gun. 4. The drive of high production mfg to make profits by selling lots of guns has dumped huge numbers of guns into the system. Rather than safer they are more accessible to anyone from criminals to legal gun owners who do not have their guns locked up and get stolen and then into criminal enterprise. We had a gun shop break in that they are still tracking all the guns that wound up in felons hands. Most not accounted for yet. Those that are were used in various crimes and one killing. 5. While I never thought I would in the past, I am an advocate of being licensed, serial number and required to be in a safe of the AR and smaller semi auto (Mini 14) as well as handguns when not in your actual possession. That does not make me anti American or anti constitution. Any more than beyond disagreeing with wherever they pulled the so called Citizen United thing out of their robes. Its clear that on both side at the Supreme Court level they interpreted the Constitution to meet their agenda and not on the rules of law.
__________________
Science and Facts are True whether you believe it or not |
|
March 27, 2018, 12:20 PM | #19 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
March 27, 2018, 12:41 PM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 19, 2015
Location: coastal NC
Posts: 645
|
Quote:
Last edited by adamBomb; March 27, 2018 at 12:47 PM. |
|
March 27, 2018, 12:47 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Quote:
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
March 27, 2018, 12:50 PM | #22 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 22, 2016
Posts: 2,192
|
Quote:
|
|
March 27, 2018, 12:55 PM | #23 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 3,652
|
Quote:
Don't take it the wrong way, it is not a criticism of you or your wife. It's a show in the difference in culture. Just a few short years and one county away can produce a dramatically different world-view. It doesn't even mean that one is right and the other is wrong... just different. And yes, lastly, I cede that I did not grow up with AR15s on the farm. But to be fair, it is a wonderful platform for varmint and pest control. Most of the Coyote culls we do have a lot of AR15s show up, though they are varmint rigs and don't look as much like the scary M4s, and it is one of the better tools for the job.
__________________
Support the NRA-ILA Auction, ends 03/09/2018 https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=593946 |
|
March 27, 2018, 01:29 PM | #24 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
As SonOfScuba accurately points out:
Quote:
Calling for someone to be labeled anti-American simply for advocating something you happen to disagree with is, however, quintessentially un-American. Not sure how or why pointing that out indicates that I'd welcome the change, but from small minds... |
|
March 27, 2018, 01:42 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 20, 2007
Posts: 2,451
|
Interesting discussion. RC20, remember that Heller did not judge the 2nd to give unrestricted access to any type of firearm. In fact, while Stevens (New York Times op-ed) wants to get rid of it, many on these forums decry the fact that it has not been the basis to throw out every gun law in the country. SCOTUS has declined to review a number of challenges to restrictions, in fact.
As is often the case, extreme positions are the ones that get press. The result is a distrust of the motives of the opposition and no discussion beyond hurling insults. That won't change any time soon. Where they have the votes (think CA and NJ), the anti crowd will pile on punitive (and that is how they are intended) measures. Where pro-gun votes hold sway, not even the most reasoned legislation will pass. There does not seem to be any common ground. So we have to pick a side. Given the choice, I'll take the pro side, crazies and all. But it probably is time we talked among ourselves and offered something other than, "my cold dead hands". Hey, they have a sheriff candidate in NC that wants to make that a reality, and his audience thought is was funny. |
|
|