[i]Washington (CNN)Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens believes the students and demonstrators who protested this past weekend for gun control should seek a repeal of the Second Amendment.
“A concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment,” Stevens wrote an op-ed published in The New York Times Tuesday, adding, “today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.”
A lifelong Republican but considered liberal in his judicial rulings, Stevens pointed to his dissent in the 2008 landmark District of Columbia v. Heller case that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm for self-defense within his home.
“That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the (National Rifle Association) with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” wrote Stevens, who served from 1975 until he retired in 2010.
He added, “Overturning that decision via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.”
CNN has reached out to the NRA for comment.
Stevens had previously argued the Second Amendment should be amended, two years after the Sandy Hook school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut.
“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,” Stevens wrote Tuesday of the weekend’s “March for Our Lives” rallies.
“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,” he continued.[/i]
By none other than John Paul Stevens. Love this article! Why, because they are laying it out as to what they really want. No more hiding behind BS or “they don’t wanna take your guns” but out in the open. This march, etc is making them emboldened and feel safe to “come out of the banner closet” as to be honest of their true goals. I think that’s real win for 2A/Gun Rights supporters as it will scare the crap out of gun owners, and it should. NRA, GOA, etc should send that out to everyone as it will increase memberships by 10 fold or more…Not some small web site or unknown paper, but the NYT. Most know the NYT is lefty central but I bet we see more of thse as they think it’s now safe to do so. This will backfire on them in an ugly way. Had they waited say 10-20 years, maybe not:
"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."
Just look at Prohibition: outlawing alcoholic beverages led to some of the bloodiest crimes and most widespread disobedience to the law in history.
Outlawing of firearms will just give some of those who have them the incentive to “do something” other than typing on internet forums.
We haven’t learned from the useless drug war that people will possess what they want to possess regardless of some words in a law book somewhere.
It’s also way too late to repeal the Second Amendment: There are too many firearms in circulation already. Outlawing possession of firearms would be about as effective as outlawing possession of pornography.
Via the rise of the mob and others, like Kennedy’s father… Man that article made my skin crawl, and other than the most diehard anti types, will do the same for many others, especially considering the author. I think they have just jumped the shark and will be stunned by the lash-back in future elections, etc.
Stevens certainly has the right to his opinions, but I don’t think he should be airing them out to the media, given his prior position.
Even if the 2nd is a relic, it is a Constitutional relic, and until we, as a Nation, decide to change it, it needs to be interpreted as ratified, not based on personal feelings.
So Stevens should STFU and go back to playing shuffleboard.
Freedom of the press is a Constitutional relic, the FF could never imagine the internet. And probably not since the 1960s have we been this close to NEEDING arms to defend our freedoms.
Interesting that a holder of the top legal position in a country can vehemently cling to his personal opinion on a legal matter.
Admittedly, the phrasing of the 2A is not entirely clear at face value when read a few hundred years later.
But an hour or two of perusing readily available material from that time makes it crystal clear.
Interestingly, one of the most clear versions is looking at Vermont’s constitution. It is pretty detailed in its desire to ensure standing armies and law enforcement are not a more powerful entity than the populace. Still a low crime state with lax gun laws typically concerned only with being a check on poaching, it finds itself under attack from transplants from shitty areas with gun laws trying to turn it into a shitty place with gun laws.
