Posted on 02/22/2014 10:25:10 AM PST by mandaladon
Pro-gun advocates will likely be relieved that John Paul Stevens, 93, is now retired and no longer serving as a member of the Supreme Court. In his upcoming book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution,” he argues for a slight change to the Second Amendment that would fundamentally alter its meaning.
As written by the Founding Fathers in the U.S. Constitution, the Second Amendment reads:
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. Stevens argues that the authors of the Second Amendment were mostly concerned about being oppressed by a national standing army, not so much about the right to self-defense.
So in order to reflect the changing times, he says, the Second Amendment should be altered to add five key words:
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.
“Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands,” Stevens writes in his defense of the change.
Stevens retired in 2010 after serving on the nation’s highest court for 35 years.
The odds of his crusade to transform the Second Amendment has little chance of even receiving serious consideration as Americans have rejected gun control efforts at the state and federal levels.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
Sorry, Justice Stevens. You lose. Thanks for playing. Your suggested change to the 2A effectively does nothing. Why? Because “militia” is not defined in the Constitution. So guess who gets to define it? Not SCOTUS. That power is reserved to the States and the People.
The added words would not change the original expectation, but it would give today's liberals more fodder for reinterpreting the amendment.
Where Stevens' idea fails is where those "serving" in the militia will get their arms, if they are not allowed to keep them when not formally organized. Is he suggesting that each locality keep a public armory where the citizens go to get their arms when called up to serve?
-PJ
The only ‘changing times’ is that our courts no longer support our constitution.
It would clarify the amendment a lot more to remove everything to the left of the commas.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
But that would be ‘amending the amendment’ even though it is for good. <: <: <:
Like
The judge said the lawyer was crazy.
throw in a comma or two
The judge, said the lawyer, was crazy.
A comma here and a comma there and pretty soon you have a whole new meaning of the same words.
Also just wonder how much ink this would have gotten had he AGREED with US????
I know that is a redundant question......
He should be ashamed.
Making sense is never a liberals strong point...
bttt
No they don’t. It seems that the momentum is usually with those pushing against the foundation, rather than those trying to maintain the foundation in place. Just think of all the “progress” we’ve made in the last few decades, or even since the advent of this administration. It’s more diffucult for us conservatives because we’re trying to conserve, to maintain, to hold in place, while they’re always trying to push us (push us right off the edge of the cliff).
What all the left ignores is that the Constitution was never intended to “give” us rights. It was to protect certain God-given rights, as far as the Founders could define them. When we start thinking and talking in terms of what the Constitution “gives” us, we’re allowing them to falsely frame the terms.
Stevens’ hatchet job turns the meaning of the Amendment on its head. The whole point was that citizens would provide their own arms and ammmunition (and be experienced in using them); that was what made the militia “well-regulated”.
Great point
Good point. The militia of which you speak is the National Guard
in the minds of Stevens and the libs. The militia you describe is
separate and distinct because the National Guard was long ago
compromised by the fed govt.
In Federalist 46 James Madison describes the armed Americans
as opposed to the Euros who were not allowed to own weapons.
He indicates that armed Americans could form militias, not that
formed militias could acquire guns.
The legal definition of the term, “militia” -
Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311
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.
I don’t think we want to hang our hats on the first clause of the 2nd Amendment. The second clause is better. According to the above legal code, anybody over 45 is not part of the militia. But since this legal code came after the adoption of the constitution, the age limitation can be disputed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is the part that should be emphasized.
**Note - Title 10 also makes no provision for US females or those people claiming to be something in between. So, old geezer males, ladies of all ages, and some people in San Francisco might have common cause to emphasize the 2nd clause of the 2nd Amendment. Politics, in deed, can make strange “bedfellows”.
I’ll keep the Founders version
Let's eat grampa.
Let's eat, grampa.
and the freedom of the press can be amended to say the freedom of the state-run press
He wants to do away with individual rights and go for group rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.