Tags
Donald Trump, Heller, John Paul Stevens, McDonald, New York Times, NRA, second amendment, Supreme Court
In February of 2013, I wrote The Courts Won’t Let Government Destroy The Second Amendment…Right? in response to the assertion of two high-powered Washington DC attorneys asserting that the courts would absolutely defend the Constitution against any attempt to abolish the Second Amendment. I wrote:
Fascinating, isn’t it, that two such genuinely experienced and esteemed lawyers can so easily deceive themselves? Not only could the courts allow widespread infringement on the Second Amendment, even a casual reading of the minority opinions in the Heller and McDonald cases, unmistakably indicates that the Second Amendment hangs on the current 5/4 balance of the Supreme Court. My recent Gun Values Board article discusses the arguments in those cases in more detail. Lose a single judge willing to honor precedent and decide cases based on the law rather than Progressive social preferences, and the Second Amendment would, at the very least, become a right with no practical application in the lives of citizens.
I ended that article:
How could the result be any different for the right to keep and bear arms?’ Simple, Mr. Rivkin Jr and Mr. Grossman. It can and will be different on the day, despite all of the evidence, despite precedence, despite reason and despite the Constitution, a narrow majority of justices who simply do not believe in a right to keep and bear arms hold sway on the Supreme Court.
Coming to a nation near you, soon?
Most Americans naively think judges, particularly judges of the United States Supreme Court, rigorously honor their oath to support and defend the Constitution. A reading of the dissents in Heller will disabuse them of that notion. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, on March 27th, explained in a New York Times op ed why none should look to the courts to defend the Constitution, and particularly the Second Amendment. Stevens, who is 97, was particularly impressed by teenaged useful idiot’s emotionally overwrought gun control demands.
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.
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.
Of course. Legislation by particularly uninformed mob rule. What could be more deserving of respect? Whoever puts several hundred thousand people in the streets, publicized by a more than willing media, gets to make law contrary to the Constitution, and if the Constitution gets in the way, repeal it! Totalitarians are always good at filling the streets with angry people.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that ‘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.’ Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
This view is in line with Stevens’ dissent in the Heller decision (Justice Breyer wrote it), though that dissent did not go so far as to demand the repeal of the Second Amendment. Steven’s misunderstanding of history—if it is a misunderstanding—is also disturbing. Anyone of average intelligence reading The Federalist and other writings of the Founders could come to no conclusion other than that the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, first and foremost, to guard against a tyrannical future government. They had no doubt, nor should we, that such is always possible. It is not at all “a relic of the 18th century,” as the Founders well knew. The necessity of possessing and carrying the means of self-defense will exist as long as human beings exist. Absent the acknowledgement and unrestrained application of that right, we descend to a state of chaos where the youngest, largest, strongest and most vicious rule. Even a moment’s thought should indicate this is the ultimate women’s issue.
Stevens argues that for more than 200 years, everyone—“it was uniformly understood”—accepted the idea that the Second Amendment did not in any way limit any state or federal gun legislation. He also refers to the Miller decision of the 1930s, the only case in which the Supreme Court barely touched upon the Second Amendment until 2008. He confuses a reluctance of the court to substantially deal with the Second Amendment with a sort of non-legal, universal, mystical understanding that the Second Amendment acknowledges no individual right to keep and bear arms. And he does not stop there (you just knew he’d have to attack the NRA, didn’t you, gentle readers?):
When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating ‘one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
He finally turned to Heller (2008) which found, definitively, for the first time in American history, the Second Amendment does acknowledge the right of the individual to keep and bear arms.
Overturning that decision [Heller] via a constitutional amendment to get rid of the Second Amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the N.R.A.’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option.
“Simple”? It would require 2/3 of both houses of Congress to pass the repeal and while the President doesn’t sign such things, he would certainly use his bully pulpit. It would also require ratification by ¾ of the states. The Founders made it difficult to amend the Constitution for light and transient reasons, which easily encompasses juvenile emotion. Leftist states whose politics are run by their major cities where gun control has had such stunning success in reducing crime would vote for repeal–they just haven’t given it to the law-abiding good and hard enough yet–but virtually nowhere else—for the time being.
And how, pray tell, has the NRA ever been able to “stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation”? At the moment, the Republican controlled Senate leadership lacks the stones to prevent 30 hours of debate on every presidential appointment. If there is anything the Congress does well, it’s endless, meaningless debate, over which the NRA has no control. Blocking “constructive gun control legislation” is a matter of the constitutional legislative process, something for which Justice Stevens apparently has little regard or patience. The goals he seeks have failed not because of the NRA, but because most Americans, through their representatives, oppose them. Were this not true, there would have been no need for Stevens’ editorial; the Second Amendment would have been repealed long ago.
Doesn’t the First Amendment apply to the NRA, which represents its more than five million members? Stevens apparently doesn’t think so.
The Heller dissent is remarkable for its lack of intellectual rigor, and for its willingness to ignore and warp history, the plain meanings of words and the clear intent of the Founders. Four members of the Supreme Court grudgingly admitted the Second Amendment refers to an individual right to keep and bear arms, but concluded that right does not prevent any state or federal restriction. It’s a right written with fading ink of yellowing paper only, without application in the lives of individual Americans. It’s akin to interpreting the First Amendment to mean individuals have a right to free speech unless the government, with unlimited discretion, decides they don’t.
Justice Stevens is certainly within the law to propose repeal of the Second Amendment, but every American should be concerned that even a retired justice of the Supreme Court would think that remotely reasonable and proper. It’s the right that secures all others.
It is equally disturbing to understand at least four justices of the current Supreme Court hold to the Heller dissent. Though they have not publically called for repealing the Second Amendment, Progressives need not repeal it to achieve the same result. All they need do is achieve a five to four majority on the Supreme Court to override Heller, which has achieved less than many imagine. Justice Stevens, by calling for the Second Amendment’s repeal, has tacitly admitted it does acknowledge an individual right, but the Heller decision was narrow indeed, essentially affirming only the right of individuals to keep and bear arms in common use only within their own homes. It does not expressly address a right to carry arms outside one’s own property—actually, outside one’s home on their own properly–to carry concealed weapons, nor does it address which weapons one may own and carry, such as the AR-15, which is the most popular and common rifle in circulation.
Some cities and states have taken advantage of this. Some intermediate federal courts have ruled that Heller obviously provides a right to keep and bear arms outside the home, which means open carry, concealed carry, or both, but that has not stopped jurisdictions like California, New York, Chicago and others to make firearm ownership and carrying all but impossible. Some suits have been filed and made it to the Supreme Court, but to date, it has denied cert to all, in effect refusing to further define or enforce the Second Amendment.
As the last year—the first of Donald Trump’s Administration—has proved, a substantial portion of our federal judiciary consider the Constitution an outdated impediment to their progressive ideals, a mere relic of the 18th century, which foolishly allows President Trump to exercise legitimate, express executive powers. Other than maintaining their own jobs, the Congress has proved it will take little or no action to defend the Constitution, or even its own constitutional powers, so federal judges acting as progressive political commissars rather than impartial jurists bound by the Constitution will surely never be impeached.
Post-Heller, the Second Amendment still hangs on the thinnest Supreme Court majority. It is that majority that prevents the Second Amendment from being a right on paper only, with no meaning in the lives of citizens. It is that majority that staves off civil war.
But hey, leftists respect the Second Amendment—we can be certain because they say so, scout’s honor. Some of them even own guns. We can be certain of this for the same reason. And they certainly, absolutely, pinky swear they do not want to take the guns of the law-abiding. Just ask retired Justice John Paul Stevens.
From the left’s position, why stop with the second amendment?
Dear Bill Cook:
Indeed. Under Barack Obama we got a taste of a president and Congress that don’t see the Constitution as any limitation on their desires.
The leftists hate the 1A almost as much as the 2A, even if they don’t openly admit it. They would like to repeal the entire Bill of Rights, or, failing that, to interpret it so as to allow anything anything that they want, and to ban anything that they don’t want. So 2A is only about the National Guard, and 1A does not protect “hate speech,” i.e., any disagreement with the PC party line.
Sorry.. something went askew there for some reason.
http://www.findingpoliticalsanity.com/a-couple-thoughts-about-retired-justice-john-paul-stevens-and-the-second-amendment/
Mike, I love your blog, but I think you are in error in stating that the President signs constitutional amendments. There is nothing in Article V (Mode of Amendment) of the U. S. Constitution that mentions the President.
Dear MEO:
Ooops. You’re quite right. It’s corrected. That’s what I get for writing things quickly during my planning period. Thanks for the catch!
Useless idiots. From Stevens to the rest of the morons marching to ban guns. You hear the left screaming “Trump is a facist!” all the time. So it makes sense to repeal the second and take all the guns away, that way he can become president for life.
Why stop at the second? Let’s repeal the first as well. Free speech is dangerous. Want proof? How many people did Hitler personally kill besides himself? I may be wrong but I can’t think of any. His words however led to the death of millions. What did those deaths require besides people willing to follow orders? It required the taking of guns from all those who he didn’t like. After all it’s hard to load up entire cities full of people into cattle cars if they have the means to shoot back.
Stevens may be 97 and senile but I’m sure he remembers his history and just chooses to ignore it. The useless idiots in the streets though need to spend more time in history class and American Government and less playing protester.
It doesn’t matter if what Stevens says. It doesn’t matter if the 2nd amendment is repealed. Our rights do not come from the Supreme Court or the Constitution. Our right to self defense with whatever means we deem suitable is ours by the mere fact of our existence. The Constitution is merely a recognition and codification of some of those rights the founding fathers felt it necessary to list. It was not meant to be exhaustive or exclusive of any other rights not specifically listed.
By that logic everyone has a “right” to do anything we damn well please; if you don’t like your neighbors orange hair you can just kill him and move on with your business… maybe you have to put up with his family retribution. I suppose by that logic you could go out and kill a few liberals.
We make laws and form governments to lend a measure of social organization for collective survival. You feel the need to express your manhood by assigning the icon of a gun as a measure of that manhood then go for it. I’d not be too dismissive of “whatever” regarding the Second Amendment. I’d prefer to retain that right since I consider myself a member of our current form of government.
Doug,
There are rights, and then there are laws. The difference may seem subtle to you, but it is an important distinction.
Consider this then.. right vs. law…
http://www.findingpoliticalsanity.com/the-second-amendment-and-u-s-code-title-18-part-i-chapter-115-%C2%A7-2385/
Dear David Worrel:
You’re quite correct. The problem, as always, is totalitarians respect no individual rights, whether natural or written.
Mike I am glad i could find you. For several months , I could not get your website to come up on my computer or tablet . I could bring up some individual articles ( old ones ) Maybe someone here can explain what happened so i know what to do in future.. Glad to be able to read again
Dear Napoleon:
Glad to have you back! I’ve no idea what caused the problem you mentioned. I commonly pull up article from a variety of cell phones, tablets and computers on a weekly basis, and have never had a problem.
Stevens retired from the SCOTUS when he began to suffer from dementia. Obviously, his condition has only worsened since then.
So now, public policy is made by Alzheimers patients and detergent-eating kids.
Re the dingbat with the sign asking why her workplace is not a gun free zone, it’s presumably because the owner of the property has not chosen to designate it as such. If the owner wanted to, then s/he could post a “gun-free zone” sign and prohibit weapons on the premises. Ever hear of “freedom of choice”?
Pingback: Kamala Harris: Kill Trump! Yuk, Yuk, Yuk! | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Eric Swalwell: Doing America A Favor | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: They Really Do Want You Disarmed | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty: A Rationale, Part 1 2019 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns And Liberty, Part 1: 2020 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: The Heller Dissent: Opportunity | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Guns and Liberty, 2021: Part 1 | Stately McDaniel Manor
Pingback: Supreme Court: It’s The American Thing To Do | Stately McDaniel Manor