pa2a.org


Share Thread:  
Does the 2nd Amendment Need to Be Amended?
#1
I saw this on philly.com. Not even a million facepalms can express my opinion of this article.

Quote:Does the Second Amendment need to be amended?


The Statement at Issue:
“As a result of [Supreme Court] rulings, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were ‘well regulated,’ has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of the draftsmen. As so amended, it would read: '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.’ ”

– Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, in an opinion column posted online April 11 by The Washington Post. It is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.” The article was republished in The Post on April 13.

We Checked the Constitution And ...
There is an old saying about the Constitution that, like a lot of old sayings, is at least partly an exaggeration: “The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.” However, that is very close to the truth about the Second Amendment.

From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun. And then it changed, in a profound way.

Prior to 2008, there was a public conversation – often, in academic writings funded by the National Rifle Association – about whether the Amendment should go beyond protecting the arming of state militias, to allow Americans to arm themselves for personal use.

The Supreme Court finally accepted that expanded view, in the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller. That ruling applied only to federal laws, or to laws enacted in the federal enclave that is the nation’s capital city. Two years later, though, in the case ofMcDonald v. City of Chicago, the court extended the broad new right nationwide, applying it to state and local laws, too. Both decisions divided the Justices 5 to 4, and Justice Stevens, then on the Court, dissented each time.

It is to be expected, perhaps, that a member of the court might well want, after retirement, to see the Constitution changed so that it reflected the views that the Justice had while on the court. Of course, retired judges, too, have free speech rights, and they can add importantly to public discourse if they continue to speak out.

What has happened since Stevens retired is that the court, with remarkable consistency, has refused to say anything more about what the Second Amendment means. Thus, all that can be derived from its two opinions is that the Amendment means that the personal right to have a gun exists only for self-defense, and only in the home.

The court, though, did not say that it was ruling out further expansions of the right. It left that, and has continued to leave that, to exploration by the lower courts. And lately, two federal appeals courts have broken ranks with the others, and have ruled that the Second Amendment reaches beyond the home, and guarantees a personal right to carry a gun in public, at least for self-defense, for hunting, and for target shooting.

If the normal reaction of the Supreme Court applied to this new division of opinions among lower court judges, the Justices would step in and resolve the split. It has had more than a half-dozen chances to do so, and has regularly declined to get involved. The cases keep reaching the court, though, so maybe one of them will attract enough attention among the Justices to get reviewed.

In the meantime, there is Justice Stevens’ suggestion to amend the Second Amendment. His change would totally wipe out both the Heller and McDonald decisions, and confine the right to have a gun to something like members of the National Guard, when on duty. (Worded that way, the Amendment would leave it to legislatures to broaden the right, if they wished. The Stevens version would only declare a constitutional minimum.)

The idea, though, runs up against a political reality. As failed attempts to pass new laws to limit gun rights have shown, Congress cannot muster enough votes to pass any gun control measure, however modest, even in the wake of such tragedies as the shooting massacre of grade school students in Newtown, Conn.

That would seem to put completely out of reach the requirement that a constitutional amendment be approved by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, and then get approval by three-fourths of the states.


Read more
[Image: pa_zps59e4c512.png?t=1379682235]
Reply
#2
The guy had a wet dream...
"...when serving in the militia..."

Then he woke up.
"Congress cannot muster enough votes to pass any gun control measure."

That's like me saying: "we really should impeach Obama" ... "But we don't have the votes."
Reply
#3
To answer the question in the title, no, it's perfect.


Oh, and this is a lie, so I couldn't get past it.


"From its inclusion in the Constitution in 1791 until 2008, it was not understood to give Americans a personal right to have a gun. And then it changed, in a profound way."
[Image: pafoasig.png]
Reply
#4
Im really trying not to be so outspoken but that Stevens guy is a JERK!
das, proud to be a member of pa2a.org since Sep 2012.
Reply
#5
Quote:“The Constitution is what the Supreme Court says it is.”

Repeat a lie often enough
The Second Amendment does not GIVE us the right. It tells the gov they can not infringe our right.
[Image: s2b0iw.jpg]
Reply
#6
Proverbs 17:28 (New Living Translation)
28 Even fools are thought to be wise when they keep silent; when they keep their mouths shut, they seem intelligent.

Enshrine it in print so none forget
(Yosemitesam)
NRA life member/ILA/PVA/Whittington Center sponsor
GOA member/Second Amendment Foundation member
NAHC life member
KECA founding committee member
http://www.experienceelkcountry.com/
Reply
#7
A lot of morons have never bothered to look up the definition of militia..

U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes


Current through Pub. L. 113-88. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.)

US Code

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Reply
#8
I'm really not liking that "under 45" part.
ColdBlueSteel, proud to be a potential enemy of the state.
Reply
#9
Is that 45 business years, or 45 calendar years? Angel
“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

William Pitt
Reply
#10
ColdBlueSteel;141151 Wrote:I'm really not liking that "under 45" part.

Introducing your under 45 militia:

[Image: 38A3FD58-39FC-47C1-8A6F-CC0388E8552F_zpsl08oo24h.jpg]
"In 4 more OMao years you won't like how America looks....I guarantee it."
“When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” -- Thomas Jefferson
Reply






Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I support the 2nd Amendment! rocketfoot 0 224 02-22-2018, 10:26 AM
Last Post: rocketfoot
  ‘Military-Style’ Firearms Aren’t Protected By Second Amendment, Court Rules sgtsandman 2 479 02-24-2017, 08:20 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Petition to Repeal the Hughes Amendment sgtsandman 0 388 02-12-2017, 08:33 PM
Last Post: sgtsandman
  Anyone Who Would Use Terror as an Excuse to Subvert the Second Amendment Should Be Ta das 12 2,103 12-09-2015, 08:18 AM
Last Post: 39Flathead
  TRUMP GIVES HIS OFFICIAL STANCE ON THE SECOND AMENDMENT das 10 1,618 09-28-2015, 01:39 AM
Last Post: DeadEye



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Software by MyBB, © 2002-2015 MyBB Group.
Template by Modogodo Design.