The only response I can make to retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens’s plea in the New York Times to repeal the Second Amendment is this:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.
I can only presume that his claim that doing so would be simple means simple to say or procedurally simple. I challenge the notion that it would be politically simple and question whether it would be politically possible. A constitutional convention would open an enormous can of worms. Chief Justice Warren Burger and Justice Antonin Scalia both cautioned against it. We could be as likely to emerge from such a convention without First Amendment rights as without Second Amendment rights. Or without protected classes of gender or race.
As to whether two-third of both houses of Congress or three-quarters of state legislatures would ratify repeal, I can only point out that half of the states presently allow open carry of firearms without a permit.
There is another downside risk to attempting repeal. Can you think of anything more likely to mobilize conservative voters?
A response would be Judge Stevens is being intellectually honest. Imagine if he advocated a strategy of stealth repeal by litigation and appointing sympathetic judges – which would be more damaging to the constitution?
Other than that Justice Stevens wants the Second Amendment repealed I don’t know what he thinks and I don’t believe that can be discerned by reading the op-ed.
He says, quite directly, that it would be simple without elaborating on what he means by that. All in all it’s something between a cri de coeur and sphinx-like utterance and I can’t quite figure out why. Retired Supreme Court justices are about as invulnerable as you can get.
We had a movement a century ago that successfully banned alcohol via a Constitutional amendment. Alcohol – that essential element of human civilizations that’s existed for tens of thousands of years if not longer.
If Americans can do that, then they can certainly remove the 2nd Amendment. But it can’t be done via Op-Eds or K-Street lobbying. It continues to amaze me that the abject failure of the gun control movement over the last few decades has not garnered much introspection when it comes to strategy.
As I’ve mentioned before movements focused on changing other people’s behavior are rarely introspective.
It would be a heck of a slog for sure. However, it is one way to separate those who are sincere vs those seeking secondary gain.
The time to do this was many years ago. Now that we have as many guns as people it is not going to happen. Besides, I don’t think it is that much of a problem. People have a right to bear arms. People have the right, through their government to regulate what kinds and how many arms. Seems pretty reasonable to me, given where we are. We have so many guns that we are just going to have mass shootings and lots of murder and suicide. Too late to change much.
Steve