Judge suggests amendment of the 2A

View · by **Tronster** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 6:55 pm

linked article http://news.yahoo.com/constitution-check-does-second-amendment-amended-100208250.html

Apparently a retired supreme court justice is suggesting that the second amendment be amended to read that the right to bear arms should be protected only while in service of a state militia. Sounds like more attempts by those with court authority to restrict the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms.

View · by **Uffdaphil** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 7:23 pm

At least we can thank the judge for implicitly acknowledging that, as written, the second amendment is not just for National Guard members as many grabbers argue.

View · by **jshuberg** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 8:08 pm

He is nothing less than an enemy of the state. In a just world, he would be charged and imprisoned for violating his oath to defend the constitution.

View · by **2in2out** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:15 pm

jshuberg wrote:He is nothing less than an enemy of the state. In a just world, he would be charged and imprisoned for violating his oath to defend the constitution.

Yes, but I also agree with uffdaphil - he just said it currently DOES protect the individual right to bear arms.

View · by **LarryFlew** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:16 pm

As an ex judge he should at least understand the following part of the article:

"That would seem to put completely out of reach the requirement that a constitutional amendment be approved by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, and then get approval by three-fourths of the states."

View · by **Tronster** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:24 pm

I don't think he is held to oath after retirement, meaning he could say whatever he wants since he is no longer a serving judge (I would guess, I don't know for sure). And in the article he dissented the official court rulling in both Heller and McDonald cases, so he's had this opinion for quite a while now and I think he is just now coming clean on it, which maybe he couldn't before when serving.

But when the ruling is 5 to 4, it shows just how close we are to a disfavorable ruling on the 2A, and the kind of anti gun opinions that are held even in highest court offices. We really are at the mercy of the courts.

View · by **Pat Cannon** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:25 pm

jshuberg wrote:He is nothing less than an enemy of the state.

He loves the state; he's an enemy of the individual.

View · by **oldhunter** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:33 pm

Seems like as the law reads we all may be part of a militia here in Minnesota
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... ew=chapter

View · by **Mn01r6** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:49 pm

oldhunter wrote:Seems like as the law reads we all may be part of a militia here in Minnesota
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id ... ew=chapter

Yeah the Feds too (well, 17-45 year old males, anyway): http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

Justice Stevens wants to amend the 2a to only apply "when serving in the militia" - the implication being that they will make a distinction so that only active duty militia are protected by the 2a. Let's not search for technicalities in the proposed change, let's get mad that someone would have the audacity, the nearsightedness, and the lack of education on this issue as the author of the dissenting opinions in both Heller and McDonald. It is scary to think about how far gone into goofy statist land he is.

View · by **jshuberg** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 9:57 pm

The history, meaning and intent of the 2A is well known and understood. He knows this. He simply disagrees with it, and would use any and every legal maneuvering to pervert the right to what he deems acceptable. Quite simply, he is a tyrant. And he should live the rest of his life locked in a cage because of it.

View · by **Mn01r6** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:15 pm

jshuberg wrote:The history, meaning and intent of the 2A is well known and understood. He knows this. He simply disagrees with it, and would use any and every legal maneuvering to pervert the right to what he deems acceptable. Quite simply, he is a tyrant. And he should live the rest of his life locked in a cage because of it.

1) it wasn't (in the law) until Heller and McDonald...one more anti on the court and it would be a very different world.

2) slow your roll on locking up those you disagree with there Pol Pot.

Justice Stevens is a political adversary and we don't jail people we disagree with in this country. Just be happy he retired before he could do any more damage.

View · by **Uffdaphil** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:28 pm

This judge illustrates what scares me about a constitutional convention. Once the floor is open for new amendments anything can happen. I'm content with the document as is. The problem is how to pressure the pols to abide by it and stop judges with agendas corrupting it's interpretation.

View · by **jgalt** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:12 pm

Pat Cannon wrote:
jshuberg wrote:He is nothing less than an enemy of the state.

He loves the state; he's an enemy of the individual.

View · by **infidel** on Tue Apr 15, 2014 11:20 pm

Why would the State need to grant a constitutional right to its own militia?

View · by **Randygmn** on Wed Apr 16, 2014 6:22 am

2in2out wrote:
jshuberg wrote:He is nothing less than an enemy of the state. In a just world, he would be charged and imprisoned for violating his oath to defend the constitution.

Yes, but I also agree with uffdaphil - he just said it currently DOES protect the individual right to bear arms.

No, he's saying that its only been recently misinterpreted to allow individuals to bear arms. He contends that as written it does not allow us to have arms and that his amendment would make it clear. Even to idiots like myself.

He should be executed for treason.