It just gets worse - ex-Supreme against the 2nd

[spencer rifle]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/former-s...tevens-repeal-second-amendment-135030186.html

First - who cares? It's Stevens, but it shows their objective.

Second - "Simple," huh? We'll see about that.

Third - Go stuff your poll. My rights are not open to your opinion. Unless you want to go after the 2nd. Then it's game on.

My answer to these clowns:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rant-second-amendment-repeal/

 

[HoughMade]

Pay attention to what he is saying. He is admitting that the gun control the left wants cannot be obtained without changing the constitution...and he is right about that.

 

[Slapstick]

That would be a long shot, 2/3 of the States have to call for a Constitutional Convention or in lieu of that 2/3 have both Houses of Congress have to approve the proposed Amendment and 3/4 of the States have to vote it in. Eventually the Left will get their way but not anytime soon and not with out a lot of opposition. The sad point is that Stevens, (yes I know it's Stevens) thinks that the 2nd is an outdated right, not surprising just sad that any Supreme Court Justice would treat the Constitution with such disdain. Even sadder is that there are current members of the Court that are just as bad if not worse than Stevens.

 

[HoughMade]

Right. It’s good news. A retired Supreme Court Justice...on the other side...agrees that the gun control people are asking for would violate the 2d Amendment.

 

[madvarminter]

its sad alright to think there are those who say they are americans but want to change the very basis for its existance

 

[Liberty Sanders]

The anti-gun cat has just come screaming out of the bag. That dotard Stevens has just handed us a very big stick.

 

[HubertGummer]

I wonder what the Founding Fathers meant when they said "Shall Not Be Infringed"

Pretty sure they didn't mean do anything you can to infringe...

 

[T.Lex]

It almost feels like there are 2 different things going on in this thread.

The former justice has a 1A right to explain that the only way to get gun control is by repealing (or significantly amending) the 2A.

What's the problem?

He agrees with the NRA on that.

He disagrees on the utility of private firearm ownership, but so what. That's an issue that reasonable people can disagree on.

Ultimately, he nets out at the same place all of us do (or should): current American law can't constitutionally take away guns.

 

[JTScribe]

"In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”"

Yeah, because Miller was dead and his counsel didn't even argue the case before the court. But admitting that would kneecap his argument.

 

[Woobie]

It almost feels like there are 2 different things going on in this thread.

The former justice has a 1A right to explain that the only way to get gun control is by repealing (or significantly amending) the 2A.

What's the problem?

He agrees with the NRA on that.

He disagrees on the utility of private firearm ownership, but so what. That's an issue that reasonable people can disagree on.

Ultimately, he nets out at the same place all of us do (or should): current American law can't constitutionally take away guns.

I thought the same thing. It's good that he basically agrees with us.


He's being self-contradictory in a way. In one breath he says you have to amend the constitution to make change to our gun laws. But in another, he affirms his dissent to Heller. Is that a tacit admission to not voting according to the constitution?

 

[T.Lex]

I thought the same thing. It's good that he basically agrees with us.


He's being self-contradictory in a way. In one breath he says you have to amend the constitution to make change to our gun laws. But in another, he affirms his dissent to Heller. Is that a tacit admission to not voting according to the constitution?

Absolutely not, IMHO.

When conferencing about the case before them, he was unable to persuade a majority of the court to his view. So, Heller was decided the way it was, and he dissented. That was his view of what the constitution intended. But, he was outvoted.

I see it as a principled stand that he lost. Thus, Heller is THE interpretation of the 2A, for as far as it goes. The only option is to amend.

He's standing up for the rule of law.

IMHO.

(Full disclosure, I disagreed with a bunch of his decisions when he wrote for the majority, too, particularly on federalism issues. Apprendi comes to mind, and probably Chevron - which coincidentally has come up recently on INGO, too. To his credit, there were other death penalty cases that he voted against his personal views but in favor of stare decisis. I believe him to be principled on most matters.)

 

[Woobie]

Absolutely not, IMHO.

When conferencing about the case before them, he was unable to persuade a majority of the court to his view. So, Heller was decided the way it was, and he dissented. That was his view of what the constitution intended. But, he was outvoted.

I see it as a principled stand that he lost. Thus, Heller is THE interpretation of the 2A, for as far as it goes. The only option is to amend.

He's standing up for the rule of law.

IMHO.

(Full disclosure, I disagreed with a bunch of his decisions when he wrote for the majority, too, particularly on federalism issues. Apprendi comes to mind, and probably Chevron - which coincidentally has come up recently on INGO, too. To his credit, there were other death penalty cases that he voted against his personal views but in favor of stare decisis. I believe him to be principled on most matters.)

So you're saying that pre-Heller, his view is that the 2A meant a certain thing. Now post-Heller, no matter what may have been intended in his view, it now is the constitution by default.

Or, to put it another way, only in the post-Heller world is a 2A repeal needed, in his view.

 

[T.Lex]

So you're saying that pre-Heller, his view is that the 2A meant a certain thing. Now post-Heller, no matter what may have been intended in his view, it now is the constitution by default.

Or, to put it another way, only in the post-Heller world is a 2A repeal needed, in his view.

Yes.

That is the way it works.

Sure, there's some room for the outlier Dred Scot decisions that get straight up reversed with the passage of time. (Arguably, Heller could be in that crowd, actually, when compared to Miller.) But, ever since Marbury v. Madison, that's pretty much the system.

 

[lonehoosier]

Dupe by a hour.

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...dment/451799-now-they-said-repeal-second.html

 

[printcraft]

I thought the same thing. It's good that he basically agrees with us.


He's being self-contradictory in a way. In one breath he says you have to amend the constitution to make change to our gun laws. But in another, he affirms his dissent to Heller. Is that a tacit admission to not voting according to the constitution?

That's how "I" interpret what he is saying. He is biased and using his personal opinion to try to enact law.

 

[churchmouse]

Yup.....dupe