Speaking of creation science
Retired SCOTUS judge John Paul Stevens wants to change the second amendment to read:
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.
This is sort of odd. See, his dissent in the Heller case was preaching the collective right nonsense. By seeking to change the amendment, does that mean his original and, practically, embarrassing dissent in Heller was a BS and he knew it? Or did he just figure it out and realize we should actually change it to mean what he said it meant?
February 20th, 2014 at 7:33 pm
Maybe he is trying to change the definition of ‘militia’ – his tweak would eliminate paragraph (b)(2) below
10 USC 311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
February 20th, 2014 at 7:51 pm
Exactly, it’s an admission that he was wrong in Heller. This is what it would like like if it were actually tied to militia service. Of course he’s going to have to rewrite it yet again since it still doesn’t say what he really wants it to say. Even though he just changed it to clearly protect military weapons, he says it doesn’t protect high capacity magazine and “assault weapons”. So his next version will say:
A well-regulated militia, being nessesary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms that are not suitable for militia purposes and might not secure a free state, while serving in the militia, shall not be infringed.
February 20th, 2014 at 8:19 pm
Or what he thought it meant, and blathered in an age-induced moment of dizziness.
February 20th, 2014 at 9:49 pm
So, under his proposal, we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent the government from taking away arms that the government has issued to you?
February 20th, 2014 at 11:39 pm
“So, under his proposal, we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent the government from taking away arms that the government has issued to you?”
That’s the only sort of conclusion one can reach, which would mean that the American founders were concerned by the repeated instances in history in which governments had disarmed themselves, or by the horrible tendency of the British Army to suddenly disarm, thus denying the Americans a good fight.
It is of course insane. Obviously then, the poor man has gone off his rocker. What I find more fascinating is that he expects to say something so blatantly stupid and not be laughed out of town. But then someone has to tow the line for The Dark Side, and so it may as well be a retired SC justice. Eventually it will make barking jackals of all of us.
February 20th, 2014 at 11:40 pm
“So, under his proposal, we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent the government from taking away arms that the government has issued to you?”
Maybe he was referring to Fort Hood, which at the time of the Jihadist attack was essentially a gun free zone. Eh?
February 21st, 2014 at 1:02 am
Well, if we’re going to open it up to modification, I say just strike everything up to the second comma and leave the rest of the original.
6. Lyle,
He seems to want to make sure that if you’re in the army, they have to let you have a gun. Maybe the JAG corps is upset they aren’t issued M4A1s?
February 21st, 2014 at 4:24 am
When he adds the “when serving in the militia” words, he’s actually saying the National Guard. But they aren’t the militia of the 2A. They are a part of the Fed’s standing military. WE are the Militia of the 2A. Besides, what sense does it make that the standing military has a right to the arms that the government would issue to them?
“Well-regulated” does not mean “under government rule”. It means that the militia can function well as a unit, and the weaponry is in good working order.
February 21st, 2014 at 8:36 am
I’m not sure how he defines the militia. I spend 6 years in the Marine Reserves and 4 in the Guard. While off-duty during that all that time, I never had any greater gun rights than a typical civilian.
Does he think that countries without the equivalent of the Second Amendment don’t issue firearms to their soldiers?
February 21st, 2014 at 9:39 am
Why not take it a step further?
Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech for those serving in the press.
Let’s just assign all our individual freedoms to job descriptions. These are not our rights, after all, they are just permissions, dispensed at the pleasure of the government.
February 21st, 2014 at 10:37 am
Transparent version, “Only people who get guns are the ones the government hands them to.” He should let his freak flag fly more so more people can understand what he wants.
February 21st, 2014 at 4:07 pm
What our retired Supreme Court Justice wanted was to have a Constitutional Amendment that limited the rights of the individual, not the powers of government.
February 21st, 2014 at 4:48 pm
Dear Uncle,
Cool!!!
Does that mean we get to owns ‘guns’ like the:
M114 155 mm Howitzer, the M119 Howitzer, or the M109 Howitzer
Or, …
Is he really one of those that thinks the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution only covers ‘hunting’
So, …
Does that mean I get to own an A-10 “Warthog” because I want to humans with an armoured shell like a T-80, T-90, or the exclusive Chinese T-96 or the T-98?
Just asking, since we may have to up the age limit on this the militia thingy, if it does.
Peace, SYK
February 21st, 2014 at 5:43 pm
It’s from his new book called Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution. Will the other 5 proposals be as dumb?
February 22nd, 2014 at 12:13 am
I suppose someone somewhere gives a damn about Stevens. Me, not so much.
What Mikee said: limit the rights of the individual.
Just forget that this document means we can throw their asses into the street if needed. And the time for that is about 50 years overdue IMHO.
February 22nd, 2014 at 7:01 am
#10 Mike: McCain-Feingold and similar such laws already do that to an extent.
February 24th, 2014 at 12:37 pm
Maybe he can start by discharging his security staff.
He doesn’t care about the rest of us.
Why would he?
He’s always safe.
February 24th, 2014 at 3:49 pm
Per the “unorganized militia” section of the Militia Act (per Burnt Toast), I’m already serving in the militia, right now, while I’m finishing lunch at work.
Hell, I can’t not “serve” in the militia at all times.
All Stevens’ amendment would do is … disarm women and old men, because they’re still not part of the Militia, per the Act.
Why this war against women, Mr. Stevens? And against retirees?
(Though I doubt that would last past the first challenge, either.)