Shooters Forum banner
1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This ex-supreme court member (John Paul Stevens) wants to change the 2nd amendment from this;
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.
To this;
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.
Other than publicizing for his upcoming book, it doesn't look like this will have much steam. :rolleyes:
Former Member of the Supreme Court Wants to Add These Five Words to the Second Amendment | TheBlaze.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
So does he propose going through the steps in Article V of the constitution to accomplish this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,834 Posts
just heard about this on the radio today. It looks simple and almost benign but it's truly silly.

The 2nd Amendment concerns arms and militia (in his revised Amendment). How silly is it to assume that, without that ending he added, that the militia might not be armed? The militia he's referring to are the armed forces and natl guard. Under his revamp, they would now have the "right" to carry arms?

Absolutely silly. It's sole design is to disarm the people, whether that's his intention or not (it is). The end result is disarming the population. The government's vested interest is in itself. Someone said it in this forum the other day: (paraphrasing) who would expect a government, lusting on it's power over people and sated on personal benefit, to not disarm the "subjects"?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
just heard about this on the radio today. It looks simple and almost benign but it's truly silly.

The 2nd Amendment concerns arms and militia (in his revised Amendment). How silly is it to assume that, without that ending he added, that the militia might not be armed? The militia he's referring to are the armed forces and natl guard. Under his revamp, they would now have the "right" to carry arms?

Absolutely silly. It's sole design is to disarm the people, whether that's his intention or not (it is). The end result is disarming the population. The government's vested interest is in itself. Someone said it in this forum the other day: (paraphrasing) who would expect a government lusting on it's power over people and sated on personal benefit to not disarm the "subjects"?

+1, agree

How about we change the first to say that retired judges cannot speak in public about the 2nd !!:D:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
just heard about this on the radio today. It looks simple and almost benign but it's truly silly.

The 2nd Amendment concerns arms and militia (in his revised Amendment). How silly is it to assume that, without that ending he added, that the militia might not be armed? The militia he's referring to are the armed forces and natl guard. Under his revamp, they would now have the "right" to carry arms?

Absolutely silly. It's sole design is to disarm the people, whether that's his intention or not (it is). The end result is disarming the population. The government's vested interest is in itself. Someone said it in this forum the other day: (paraphrasing) who would expect a government, lusting on it's power over people and sated on personal benefit, to not disarm the "subjects"?
As much as I love my gun rights I'm also concerned what else he thinks should be changed. After all, his book won't simply be limited to gun rights. It details the whole constitution if I'm correct. Six Amendments - Hachette Book Group
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,911 Posts
It's 180 degrees bass-ackwards...

The Constitution and Bill of Rights were both written by people who believed in the Rights of the People, that government should be small and must be completely under the control of the People. What we have today is the opposite of what The Founders envisioned and what The Framers codified...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,911 Posts
The government's vested interest is in itself. Someone said it in this forum the other day: (paraphrasing) Who would expect a government, lusting on its power over people and sated on personal benefit, to not disarm the "subjects"?
Yes, and more to the point, it's sophistry to argue that a government needs a codified Right to own and use firearms. A government must always be armed to protect the nation and the People of that nation from foreign aggression. Even the Vatican has an army. The Second exists to protect the People from the government. Not a surprise the liberal Stevens wants the People disarmed...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
I want to know how he intends for this to happen. Is he looking for a Supreme Court decision that in effect says this without altering the actual wording? Or is he suggesting an amendment per the process in Article V? If it is the latter, they have no prayer. The former is much more ominous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,834 Posts
I don;t think the Supreme Court has the power to change even a single word, or even "make law" that would amount to it. So, it has to be by Consitutional amendment.

Yes, people forget the Bill of Rights were written exclusively for the people, and not for either Federal or State governments. And as someone said earlier, without the Second, the other Nine don;t amount to anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,893 Posts
Let's put this in context.... a liberal 94 year old thaa t is brain dead wants to change the 2nd amendment.

It the fool thinks that is so important....why did he wait till he has one foot in the grave?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,283 Posts
Yes, and more to the point, it's sophistry to argue that a government needs a codified Right to own and use firearms. A government must always be armed to protect the nation and the People of that nation from foreign aggression. Even the Vatican has an army. The Second exists to protect the People from the government. Not a surprise the liberal Stevens wants the People disarmed...

Was he always a lib ? Didn't Nixon and Ford put him on the appeals and then the supreme courts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
I don;t think the Supreme Court has the power to change even a single word, or even "make law" that would amount to it. So, it has to be by Constitutional amendment.

Yes, people forget the Bill of Rights were written exclusively for the people, and not for either Federal or State governments. And as someone said earlier, without the Second, the other Nine don;t amount to anything.
I agree totally, but they could, through a supreme court decision choose to interpret the words differently than the framers intended. They do in effect "make law" through rulings. They essentially "made law" in Roe vs Wade when they invalidated state laws prohibiting abortion. Conversely, if a state law was passed that essentially mandated what Stevens said, it would absolutely go to the courts. If it made it to a loaded Supreme Court (the libs current goal) and they affirmed it (did not overturn it), it would essentially become law. That would not happen with the current court. But if the liberals continue to dominate presidential elections and control the Senate, it's not beyond possible that a very liberal state in a liberal Federal Appeals Court district (i.e. New Engalnd or the West Coast) could someday pass such a law. Does anyone doubt that court loaded with the likes of Stevens would affirm it?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,911 Posts
Was he always a lib? Didn't Nixon and Ford put him on the Appeals and then the Supreme courts.
Not sure. I'd think Carter put Stevens on the SC. I'd have to look it up...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,972 Posts
I believe that citizens/voters, here in this country, are becoming sick & tired of all these infringing gun control laws. None of them have worked to curb crime, but rather infringe on the average law abiding citizen.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,917 Posts
I believe that citizens/voters, here in this country, are becoming sick & tired of all these infringing gun control laws. None of them have worked to curb crime, but rather infringe on the average law abiding citizen.
I agree, but that is not the story in the press. I saw one yesterday that said: "New study by Johns Hopkins, since Missouri Dropped background checks, gun deaths have gone up 17%." There are several more talking about "the dramatic drop" in murders in Chicago since gun control measures were enacted. There are many others.

The fact that these stories are fantasy and have no basis in fact is really not ever mentioned. The truth is Davers, voters like you and I are sick of it, but our vote was never in question. If you haven't noticed, our side isn't winning of late. And even if we can achieve an victory, it's by a razor thin margin. Granted, that's enough, but we have no margin for error as the other side now does.
 
  • Like
Reactions: StretchNM

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,834 Posts
I agree totally, but they could, through a supreme court decision choose to interpret the words differently than the framers intended. They do in effect "make law" through rulings. They essentially "made law" in Roe vs Wade when they invalidated state laws prohibiting abortion. Conversely, if a state law was passed that essentially mandated what Stevens said, it would absolutely go to the courts. If it made it to a loaded Supreme Court (the libs current goal) and they affirmed it (did not overturn it), it would essentially become law. That would not happen with the current court. But if the liberals continue to dominate presidential elections and control the Senate, it's not beyond possible that a very liberal state in a liberal Federal Appeals Court district (i.e. New Engalnd or the West Coast) could someday pass such a law. Does anyone doubt that court loaded with the likes of Stevens would affirm it?
That's what I meant when putting "make law" in quotation marks. But see, they can;t do that. That's changing the wording of an amendment, and that can;t be done without Constitutional amendment. In Roe versus Wade, they didn;t change wording, just an interpretation of it.

Now, it's possible that they could rule that a State law (say prohibiting firearm ownership except when enlisted in the military) is valid, but they'd still have to deal with the wording of the 2nd Amendment, which was affirmed as valid not long ago and many times previous.

In today's "government", we have seen that Constitutional law means nothing.... nothing. So, under these rules, (literally) anything is possible.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top