I think that even just 10 years ago most of you would never have believed that we (USA) would get here so quickly.
This op-ed piece will make your fucking head explode!
Couple things: John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
That means that he fucking knows that he's being disingenuous when he writes shit like this: "In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun"
Backstory on that case:
2 hillbilly moonshiners from Arkansas were the first to be brought up on charges under the 1935 NFA, which was actually on very shaky constitutional ground back then. The 2 men were in possession of a shortened shotgun, (in their truck, it was common practice to shorten a shotgun barrel and stock for such a defense weapon kept in a vehicle). Long story short, a judge threw the case out of court, with a fiery condemnation of the constitutionality of the 1935 NFA. Federal prosecutors spent a couple years repealing the case all the way up to the supreme court. The attorney for the defense, who was working pro-bono on behalf of our two hillbilly gentlemen, was unable to track the two hillbillies down again by the time the case made it to the supreme court 2-3 years later, as they had disappeared back into the hills. Since he couldn't find his plaintiffs, he didn't show either (he was doing this for free, remember?). The court ruled on behalf of the prosecution because nobody showed up. That ruling has been used to cement the constitutionality of the very unconstitutional 1935 National Firearms Act ever since.
Full text of the NYT article below. Link to article included for verification but the NYT doesn't deserve our page hits and ad revenue.
ARTICLE:
John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment
By JOHN PAUL STEVENSMARCH 27, 2018
Rarely in my lifetime have I seen the type of civic engagement schoolchildren and their supporters demonstrated in Washington and other major cities throughout the country this past Saturday. These demonstrations demand our respect. They reveal the broad public support for legislation to minimize the risk of mass killings of schoolchildren and others in our society.
That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislation prohibiting civilian ownership of semiautomatic weapons, increasing the minimum age to buy a gun from 18 to 21 years old, and establishing more comprehensive background checks on all purchasers of firearms. But the demonstrators should seek more effective and more lasting reform. They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.
Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of that amendment, which provides that “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.” Today that concern is a relic of the 18th century.
[For more on the gun legislation debate and other issues, subscribe to our Opinion Today newsletter.]
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. 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.”
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.
That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchildren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.
John Paul Stevens is a retired associate justice of the United States Supreme Court.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTopinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter.
*Article text stolen from: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/27/opinion/john-paul-stevens-repeal-second-amendment.html ; because fuck the NYT, fuck John Paul Stevens, and fuck the very concept of IP.
