gun control US Supreme Court

Former SCOTUS judge reveals why he should never have been on the bench in the first place…


 

What a kook…

 

If you don’t understand the 2nd Amendment (gun rights) stay off the bench. Here’s an eloquent defense of the 2A

 

Other shoe drops: Former SCOTUS Justice calls for ‘repeal of 2A to ‘make schoolchildren safer’

In an op-ed published in Tuesday’s New York Times, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for a repeal of the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in order to “make our schoolchildren safer. …”

 

“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,” he began.

 

The former Justice continued:

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 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.”

 

More here.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.