Interesting history of the NRA

[JerryB]

Hi Idaho,

Re: will happen much sooner than any of us know.

Re: the remaining lifetime for most of us

Note the difference,

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob Denman]

fail to see.jpg

[UtahPete]

fail to see.jpg

I don't see the irony, and I fully understand why the 2nd amendment was written.

[Bob Denman]

No: you don't...

[BigGuy66]

...Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for the repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed published Tuesday. Stevens, who served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, called the Second Amendment “a relic of the 18th century” that saw a lifting in its previously limited reach in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision. He said that case’s ruling “provided the [National Rifle Association] with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” and that overturning 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.” Stevens, now 97, also called for the March for Our Lives leaders to demand the amendment’s repeal, and claimed it “would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform.” In an 2014 op-ed in The Washington Post, Stevens called for the courts to clarify the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms existed “in the Militia.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/retired-supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-repeal-the-second-amendment

And there it is! In our lifetimes...

[Bob Denman]

At least we're finally seeing some honesty...

But repealing the Second Amendment; to:
"weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun-control legislation"

REALLY?
I thought that this Amendment protected the rights of the citizenry to own firearms: not the rights of an organization to lobby on our behalf...

[UtahPete]

...Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for the repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed published Tuesday. Stevens, who served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, called the Second Amendment “a relic of the 18th century” that saw a lifting in its previously limited reach in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision. He said that case’s ruling “provided the [National Rifle Association] with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” and that overturning 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.” Stevens, now 97, also called for the March for Our Lives leaders to demand the amendment’s repeal, and claimed it “would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform.” In an 2014 op-ed in The Washington Post, Stevens called for the courts to clarify the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms existed “in the Militia.”

[Pirate looks at --]

So how about we all line up on one side or the other, back to back, march 5 paces turn and fire! That should settle everything!

[UtahPete]

At least we're finally seeing some honesty... But repealing the Second Amendment; to: "weaken the NRA’s ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun-control legislation" REALLY? I thought that this Amendment protected the rights of the citizenry to own firearms: not the rights of an organization to lobby on our behalf...

Only since the 1970s, when the NRA brilliantly decided to exploit the ambiguity of this amendment for the benefit of the arms industry.

[Bob Denman]

What ambiguity are you referring to?

[UtahPete]

What ambiguity are you referring to?

Most of the language of the 2nd amendment is ambiguous, which has led to the extreme interpretation that the NRA has promoted since the 1970s. We've been over this before, Bob, and the very fact that large segments of the population continue to hold very conflicting views of the meaning of the amendment is evidence enough of its ambiguity.

I tried to start a thread just for the sake of exploring this ambiguity some months ago, but it was pulled as being too controversial I guess.

[Bob Denman]

So with that long-winded answer: you don't know...

[UtahPete]

So with that long-winded answer: you don't know...

You want black / white answers and there aren't any.

[Bob Denman]

"

What is the Supreme Court's position on the Second Amendment?


In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right."

It seems pretty clear to me!

[UtahPete]

"

What is the Supreme Court's position on the Second Amendment?


In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right."

It seems pretty clear to me!

A 5-4 split decision on handgun restrictions in the District of Columbia isn't exactly a sweeping endorsement of the 2nd amendment interpretation.

[Fatcycledaddy]

...Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens called for the repeal of the Second Amendment in a New York Times op-ed published Tuesday. Stevens, who served on the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010, called the Second Amendment “a relic of the 18th century” that saw a lifting in its previously limited reach in 2008’s District of Columbia v. Heller decision. He said that case’s ruling “provided the [National Rifle Association] with a propaganda weapon of immense power,” and that overturning 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.” Stevens, now 97, also called for the March for Our Lives leaders to demand the amendment’s repeal, and claimed it “would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform.” In an 2014 op-ed in The Washington Post, Stevens called for the courts to clarify the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms existed “in the Militia.”
https://www.thedailybeast.com/retired-supreme-court-justice-john-paul-stevens-repeal-the-second-amendment

And there it is! In our lifetimes...

Isn't it the Supreme Courts job to INTERPRET the constitution, not to try to CHANGE it?
They are supposed to be more like a referee in a game, they are to tell when someone oversteps the rules and steps out of bounds, not MAKE the rules.
There personal opinions of whether they like or dislike it are irreverent, the ruling is to be whether it abides by the constitution, not to give his opinion on why the constitution should be changed.

[Bob Denman]

It's still an official decision...
5-4 is the same as 9-0

[kep-up]

here's my interpretation:

i'm gonna go to my local gunshop and buy another shotgun! SO THERE!!!!

[Bob Denman]

[Bob Denman]

A 5-4 split decision on handgun restrictions in the District of Columbia isn't exactly a sweeping endorsement of the 2nd amendment interpretation.

Put on your OTHER reading glasses!

"

What is the Supreme Court's position on the Second Amendment?
In its June 26 decision, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms, and that the D.C. provisions banning handguns and requiring firearms in the home disassembled or locked violate this right."

They were two separate decisions...

[UtahPete]

Isn't it the Supreme Courts job to INTERPRET the constitution, not to try to CHANGE it? They are supposed to be more like a referee in a game, they are to tell when someone oversteps the rules and steps out of bounds, not MAKE the rules. There personal opinions of whether they like or dislike it are irreverent, the ruling is to be whether it abides by the constitution, not to give his opinion on why the constitution should be changed.

Yes, the Supreme Court role is to determine the constitutional issues of cases brought before it. In that case he refers to, someone was challenging the constitutionality of a District of Columbia law requiring handguns be dismantled and basically rendered inoperable inside the home. The appellant was asking the Court to render a decision based on the 2nd amendment. That they determined D.C.'s restrictions violated the constitution in no way endorses or interprets the Second Amendment in any general sense.

He is no longer on the bench, so he is entitled to state his personal opinion. It is neither irreverent or irrelevant, any more than yours or mine.

[JerryB]

Hi Fatcycledaddy,

Re: Isn't it the Supreme Courts job to INTERPRET the constitution, not to try to CHANGE it?

In the history of this nation, the Supreme Court has never made a change to the Constitution.

They only say what it means. And, depending on what they decide to hear, they can revise any previous ruling.

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob Denman]

Yes, the Supreme Court role is to determine the constitutional issues of cases brought before it. In that case he refers to, someone was challenging the constitutionality of a District of Columbia law requiring handguns be dismantled and basically rendered inoperable inside the home. The appellant was asking the Court to render a decision based on the 2nd amendment. That they determined D.C.'s restrictions violated the constitution in no way endorses or interprets the Second Amendment in any general sense.

He is no longer on the bench, so he is entitled to state his personal opinion. It is neither irreverent or irrelevant, any more than yours or mine.

You're still trying to lump several of the issues into one...

They held that firearms ownership is an individual right.
(But not one without limitations...)

[UtahPete]

They held that firearms ownership is an individual right. (But not one without limitations...)

I don't disagree with your statement above, including the caveat.

[UtahPete]

here's my interpretation: i'm gonna go to my local gunshop and buy another shotgun! SO THERE!!!!

Browning or Mossberg?