How a Supreme Court Justice Misses the Critical Legal Point
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
…In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Chief Justice Burger’s and others’ long-settled understanding of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.
That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the N.R.A. with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturning that decision 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.
There is a premise or two embedded in Justice Stevens point-
One is that the 2nd A has been the legal premise for an inability to regulate firearms. I reject that premise on the basis of so few laws being overturned, and the sheer number and scope of gun control laws that have held up post Heller.
Another more troublesome idea is that the idea an advocacy group can exploit a particular court ruling as a basis to remove a component of the Bill of Rights. As if the way hate groups exploit the 1st Amendment to say a lot of horrible things could justify the removal of that Amendment.
EDIT-The draft feature kinda bit me on this one. I deleted a paragraph I had thought to remove before.
Since AR style guns were regulated under the
Brady bill 1994 gun control act, and in states like California, why do we think we need to repeal the 2nd to do the same again?
*Thanks GDFrank for correcting me on the origin of the assault weapon ban.