Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens Calls For Second Amendment Repeal




Calling it \"a relic of the 18th century,\" retired Supreme Court Justice John
Calling it \"a relic of the 18th century,\" retired Supreme Court Justice John  

Calling it "a relic of the 18th century," retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called Tuesday for the outright repeal of the Second Amendment, saying it would achieve "more effective and more lasting reform" than other efforts to curb the country's scourge of gun violence.

In a New York Times op-ed, Stevens ― who as a high court justice dissented on a key gun rights case in 2008 ― praised the student demonstrators at Saturday's March for Our Lives protests, saying that the thousands of marchers, led by the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, "demand our respect."

Beyond pushing for stronger legislative measures, such as banning assault-style weapons and mandating background checks, he advised the movement to "demand a repeal of the Second Amendment:"

In 2008, the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller was widely considered a victory for the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other gun rights advocates, helping to cement a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment and limiting legal grounds for gun control measures.

The ruling barred Washington, D.C., which has among the country's strictest gun laws, from enforcing a ban it had on handguns and other gun requirements because they violated the Second Amendment.

Stevens, among the four justices in the court's liberal wing who dissented in the case, wrote Tuesday that he still believes the ruling was "wrong and certainly was debatable," arguing that it "has provided the NRA 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 NRA's ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other available option," he continued.

Read Stevens' full op-ed here.

COMMENTS

More Related News

War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
War memorial or religious symbol? Cross fight reaches U.S. high court
  • US
  • 2019-02-22 12:42:06Z

There was nothing about it that made me think it was anything other than a Christian cross," Edwords, 70, said in an interview. Edwords and two other plaintiffs filed a 2014 lawsuit challenging the cross as a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion and bars governmental actions favoring one religion over another. While the Establishment Clause's scope is a matter of dispute, most Supreme Court experts predict the challenge to the Peace Cross will fail, with the justices potentially setting a new precedent allowing greater government involvement in religious expression.

Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.
Does a 40-foot Latin cross honoring World War I veterans violate the Constitution? The Supreme Court will decide.

The Supreme Court considers whether a Latin cross to honor World War I dead violates the First Amendment.

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws
Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws

Supreme Court Rules Unanimously to Limit Civil Forfeiture Laws

SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture
SCOTUS Cracks Down on Civil Asset Forfeiture

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Wednesday that state and local governments are not exempt from the Constitutional prohibition against imposing "excessive fines" on citizens, significantly constraining the ability of law enforcement to seize the property of criminal suspects.Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for eight of the nine justices, argued that state and local governments unconstrained by the Eighth Amendment's excessive-fines clause are likely to abuse their power."For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history: Exorbitant tolls undermine other constitutional liberties," Ginsburg wrote. "Excessive fines...

U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on
U.S. high court buttresses constitutional ban on 'excessive fines'
  • US
  • 2019-02-20 15:40:13Z

The nine justices ruled unanimously in favor of an Indiana man named Tyson Timbs who argued that police violated his rights by seizing his $42,000 Land Rover vehicle after he was convicted as a heroin dealer. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, back on the bench for a second straight day after undergoing lung cancer surgery in December, wrote the court's opinion, which clarified the applicability of the "excessive fines" prohibition contained in the Constitution's Eighth Amendment. "For good reason, the protection against excessive fines has been a constant shield throughout Anglo-American history.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply

Comments

Top News: Latin America

facebook
Hit "Like"
Don't miss any important news
Thanks, you don't need to show me this anymore.