This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/mar/27/john-paul-stevens-former-supreme-court-justice-repeal-second-amendment

The article has changed 5 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Former supreme court justice calls for repeal of second amendment Gun safety groups not convinced by retired justice's call to repeal second amendment
(about 4 hours later)
Retired supreme court justice John Paul Stevens is calling for the repeal of the second amendment to allow for significant gun control legislation. The highest-profile gun safety groups did not take up a call by retired supreme court justice John Paul Stevens on Tuesday for a repeal of the second amendment to the constitution, pointing to alternatives they said had broad popular support and would be more effective at curbing gun violence.
The 97-year-old Stevens says in an essay on the New York Times website that repeal would weaken the NRA’s ability to “block constructive gun control legislation”. Stevens made the potentially inflammatory call to repeal the amendment, which describes “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, in a New York Times editorial.
Stevens was on the losing end of a 2008 ruling in which the high court held that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun for self-defense. He had previously called for changing the second amendment to permit gun control. “A constitutional amendment to get rid of the second amendment would be simple and would do more to weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option,” wrote Stevens, 97, referring to the National Rifle Association.
Stevens says the decision in that case, District of Columbia v Heller, “has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power”. Stevens retired from the court in 2010, after more than 35 years. A repeal of the amendment, which some gun owners view as sacred, is not a priority for groups such as Everytown for Gun Safety, Sandy Hook Promise and the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
Those groups have prioritized legislative solutions such as universal background checks, extreme-risk protection laws and restrictions on magazine capacities and assault weapons sales.
“The courts have overwhelmingly ruled that there is no inconsistency between second amendment rights and reasonable, commonsense gun safety laws, and states are already stepping up to protect people from gun violence,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown, in a statement.
“If members of Congress fail to follow suit, the American people will throw them out this November.”
A spokesperson for the Brady Campaign released a statement saying: “Regardless of whether one agrees with the view of Justice Stevens or Justice [Antonin] Scalia on the meaning of the second amendment, the supreme court was in agreement that the second amendment allows for the common-sense gun reforms that the Brady Campaign and most Americans support.”
The late Scalia authored the majority opinion in a watershed 2008 ruling, District of Columbia v Heller, in which the high court held that the second amendment gives individuals the right to own a gun for self-defense. Stevens dissented.
Sandy Hook Promise declined a request for comment on Stevens’ proposal.
Support for new gun laws in the US has risen to historic highs following recent mass shootings in Sutherland Springs, Texas; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Parkland, Florida.
Hundreds of thousands of students and supporters rallied in Washington DC last weekend in a “March for our Lives”, to call for gun safety measures. An average of 96 Americans die each day in gun violence.
Stevens was nominated by President Gerald Ford in 1975 and retired in 2010. He has previously called for the second amendment to be revised to more explicitly confine gun rights to active members of a “well regulated militia”.
Amending the constitution would require the ratification by three-quarters of the states of an amendment approved by two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress, or the convening of a new constitutional convention. The constitution was last amended in 1992, over congressional pay.
US gun control
US constitution and civil libertiesUS constitution and civil liberties
US supreme courtUS supreme court
US gun control
NRANRA
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content