Maybe Justice Stevens should stick with baseball
In his new book “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution”, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens makes his case for eliminating the Second Amendment except for military purposes. He would leave us to our fate in an increasingly more dangerous world.
As far as Stevens can tell, “federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by the text was limited in two ways: first, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms.”
The District of Columbia vs. Heller determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
In the Heller case, we were one vote away from losing the Second Amendment. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Stevens said, “There is no indication that the Framers intended to enshrine the common law right of self-defense in the Constitution.” He has also said at other times, we have the right to call “911.”
Since Stevens believes that the authors of the Second Amendment were primarily concerned about the threat that a national standing army posed to the sovereignty of the states—as opposed to homeowners’ anxiety about violent felons—he thinks the best way to fix the situation is to amend the Second Amendment. He’d do that by adding five words as follows:
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.
Stevens doesn’t take defeat well. He wants us to lose our Second Amendment right to self-defense and even though he’s out of office, he is still pushing to limit our right to self defense.