Gun Control and the Constitution: Should We Amend the Second Amendment?

[SecularMotion]

The liveliest (and oldest) former member of the U.S. Supreme Court is at it again. John Paul Stevens, 93, served on the highest court in the land for an impressive 35 years, from 1975 until his retirement in June 2010. Known for his bow ties, brilliant legal mind, and striking transformation from Midwest Republican conservative to hero of the political left, Stevens remains an intellectual force to reckon with. In his latest book, the forthcoming Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution, he offers a half-dozen stimulating ideas for altering, and he would say improving, our foundational legal document. Today, let’s consider his most controversial proposal: changing the Second Amendment. Stevens is not going to win any friends at the National Rifle Association, because his undisguised agenda is to make it easier to regulate the sale and ownership of firearms.

With exquisitely awkward 18th century syntax, the Second Amendment states:

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.

For a couple of centuries, you might be surprised to learn, the Supreme Court didn’t say exactly what the Second Amendment means. As far as Stevens can tell, “federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the text was limited in two ways: first, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.” He recalls a colorful remark on the topic by the late Warren Burger, who served as chief justice from 1969 to 1986. Responding to the NRA’s lobbying campaign opposing gun control laws in the name of Second Amendment rights, Burger, a lifelong conservative, remarked during a television interview in 1991 that the amendment “has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat, fraud—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-20/gun-control-and-the-constitution-should-we-amend-the-second-amendment

[Straw Man]

1. So you're with Warren Burger on this one?

I wonder which of the other enumerated rights you would be willing to allow individual states to circumscribe or ignore.

[clffrdjk]

2. When serving in the militia

"Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons—he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. He’d do that by adding five words 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."

So his solution is to limit the right to keep and bear arms, to only those who are a part of the national army. Yea that totally fits with the other amendments in the bill of rights and fits with intentions of the authors of the second amendment.

But I guess I shouldn't worry because there is no way the states would sign off on that.

[gejohnston]

3. a child of the one percent

becoming one of nine. Like most wealthy elitists, the thinks the average person is too stupid and emotional to make important decisions for themselves. As for "anxiety of violent felons". it isn't some he ever imagined to deal with. He grew up in a luxury apt building in Chicago, complete with doorman. As a SCOTUS, he had personal armed guards.

“federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the text was limited in two ways: first, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.”

The first part isn't actually true. Actually, (prior to incorporation) the judges ruled that any limitations on the BoR applied to the federal government, having nothing to do with militias. Federal judges also said the same of the first, fourth, and fifth amendments as well.

[TupperHappy]

4. Fine, I'll bite.

I have taken to heart the calls that the militia is an anachronism and outdated, so therefore we should amend it to read as follows:

"The right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Problem solved!

[hack89]

5. Clarify the meaning by taking the reference to the militia. Nt