- As a result of the rulings in Heller and McDonald, the Second Amendment, which was adopted to protect the states from federal interference with their power to ensure that their militias were “well regulated,” has given federal judges the ultimate power to determine the validity of state regulations of both civilian and militia-related uses of arms. That anomalous result can be avoided by adding five words to the text of the Second Amendment to make it unambiguously conform to the original intent of its draftsmen. As so amended, it would 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.”
Emotional claims that the right to possess deadly weapons is so important that it is protected by the federal Constitution distort intelligent debate about the wisdom of particular aspects of proposed legislation designed to minimize the slaughter caused by the prevalence of guns in private hands. Those emotional arguments would be nullified by the adoption of my proposed amendment. The amendment certainly would not silence the powerful voice of the gun lobby; it would merely eliminate its ability to advance one mistaken argument.
better talk to this dude https://loweringthebar.net/2017/03/guy-who-got-a-c-on-amendment.html
This is one of the most gratifying things I've read all week.
I was all set to disagree but I'm pretty much right with the honorable Justice. As a red-blooded fan of guns and a red-blooded hater of gun violence I've tried to wrap my head around a solution for decades. I've shot assault rifles in quarries and I've seen a simple beef turn into an armed standoff because the damn things are so convenient. I think a lot of the problems our whole society faces is that white dudes like myself are no longer the Masters of the Universe and we're takin' it hard. Gun deaths are this country's "angry white dude tax" - the cost of improving racial and gender equality appears to be some tragic number of white assholes losing their shit and hate-bombing their way out of life with as many representatives of the society that let them down coming with them. I think we should do anything we can do to co-opt the emotions that lead to isolation, resentment and militarization and use them for good. I think all the groups that teach male bonding - Boy Scouts, Masons, Elks/Moose/Eagles lodges - are experiencing plummeting membership. I think identity politics is "anybody like me" and if "anybody like me" hates the government, likes guns, has a tough time making friends and is looking for some order, there ought to be a place for them to go where they can do some good and where the 99.999% of them that aren't crazy, that aren't going to shoot up a concert, that don't intend to take as many cops as they can down with them should rub shoulders with the .0001% and maybe make 'em a little less crazy. And if not, at least have a pipeline to bring them to the attention of the people who need to know. How 'bout a well-regulated militia? How 'bout a step below the National Guard? How 'bout Search'n'Rescue only okay, we'll make sure you know how to shoot and stuff in case that comes in handy. We'll make you a parallel, privately-organized organization that, if you meet certain requirements, gets certain law enforcement perks like range times, discounted ammo, training, reserved frequencies for coordination, and an org chart that law enforcement or the military can interact with? A well-regulated militia wasn't intended as an adversarial force against the government like it's become now; it was intended as a way to protect the safety and sanctity of the citizenship. I'm cool with that existing again so long as it isn't a roving band of trigger-happy LittleMen with no adult supervision. All we really need is the supervision and every paramilitary Joe I've ever met positively jumps at the chance to act in an official capacity. Rather than amend the constitution, let's amend our approach to militias. If you have to go to meetings twice a month and do a skill check-out in order to sport 20-round mags and pickatinny rail, the gun nuts will jump at that shit, particularly if you let them know they're helping their country.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.
Why isn't what they termed a militia back then what the police are now? I know that technically they did exist back then, in a very different scope, but does the modern day incarnation fulfill the role they were imagined to have? Like, I don't really understand what the nat'l guard does, or the intricacies of on-the-ground state authority, so maybe therein lies a misunderstanding. I mean, this seems like a reasonable solution on paper, but I grew up with some of the people that would swoon over this opportunity, and those are the last people I would want reacting in a stressful situation armed to the teeth. I can only imagine an incompetent, y'all quaeda, blackwater-esque group that has police connections? I would hope it just gets their war boner off but some fuckers are gonna take it too far. Anyone allied with the OPD in that manner would be immediately highly suspicious to me. I mean, Katrina was bad enough, and already had issues with overuse of violence, but then to have a bunch of dudes bristling with mall ninja shit, thinking they are the authority roaming around? Also, this shit scares the hell out of me. I don't think that this particular event is anything other than situational. but giving it a veneer of legitimacy is troubling.We'll make you a parallel, privately-organized organization that, if you meet certain requirements, gets certain law enforcement perks like range times, discounted ammo, training, reserved frequencies for coordination, and an org chart that law enforcement or the military can interact with?
A militia in 1789 did not require membership. A militia was simply all the able-bodied men, all of whom were expected to show up with a personal weapon to defend their localities in the event of invasion. Every man was expected to keep a gun in his home for this purpose. That means that this right to bear arms applies to everyone. In fact, this is similar to a jury and being called for jury duty. You have no special training in legal affairs, yet you are expected to show up in business attire and decide the fate of someone accused of breaking the law for very little compensation.
Following a quick read and subsequent CTRL + f search, I see nowhere in this article where Justice Stevens attempts to clearly define the crucial term "militia," even when referencing it as being part of a state's apparatus. Does he mean the states' National Guard forces? If so, then the door is opened for confiscation of every private citizen's firearms with a special focus on those too old to serve in the Guard. Does he mean any private organization claiming to be a militia? If so, the controversial militia elements in every single state in the Union will be given additional legitimacy and a huge surge in membership. Does he mean something else? Without looking at his decision history I have no idea what Justice Stevens means when he uses the term "militia," since it could conceivably mean anything from a few guys that meet up every few months for a range trip to an actual government organization (Nat'l Guard.) I don't think these five words solve anything, let alone "fix" the Second Amendment. And there's a reason the Founders delegated Constitution-interpreting power to the Judiciary branch, and not the Legislative. But this kind of dialogue is healthy, so I'm glad I read the article.
The Constitution has the following to say about the militia: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; ... To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; That pretty clearly suggests that "militia" is whatever the government argues that it is. It's a thing they organize, arm and discipline it so they can call it forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. The end effect is kicking a big fuckin' hole in the 2nd amendmen.Section. 8.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Well, there it is. I had a strong suspicion about that interpretation, but it's informative to know that. I can't support this kind of change to the 2nd. Under that definition, the states get sweeping authority to decide who is allowed to own a weapon, which probably only extends to the police and National Guard units. Klein, I just read your comment about updating the style of the militia groups in order to justify this kind of change and I really like those ideas but I have little faith that most state governments have the foresight to see it this way. Instead, I think a step in the other direction would be probable - outcry from the general populace, followed by a few high-profile crackdowns that drive the unrecognized militia groups further into the shadows along with a bunch more people who, unwilling to give up their firearms, will be more inclined to align with these newly-outlawed groups. The end result would be a huge increase in distrust of government combined with further isolation and possible radicalization of many otherwise law-abiding citizens who now have to make a perceived choice between legality and their constitutional right. These five words don't just kick a hole in the 2nd amendment, they raze it to the ground and shatter a significant facet of national culture in the process. Hyperbole? Possibly. But a great many people will see it this way. Those sorts of instantaneous changes are typically met with open hostility. The militia membership idea is a super cool one. Regardless of whether or not any changes are made by the ATF, legislature, or Supreme Court, we ought to encourage active physical participation in local community organizations such as what these would be. I'm not so sure about the governmental oversight you propose, although for the extra goodies like reliable org charts and reserved frequencies it would likely be necessary. Some limited method like a county coordinator, or checkups from the Guard or something may work. Isolation appears to be a common factor in a great many of these shooters' backgrounds, and an atmosphere of isolation is getting continually easier to maintain. On the other hand, gang violence (which is a much more frequent source of gun-related deaths) seems to occur mostly in groups, so there's that counterpoint. It does seem that we are less enthusiastic about civil service that the romanticized past, and gun club militias may be one way out of that slump. You just need to make sure they don't swing either towards paramilitary political groups, or jumped-up gangs.
In Australia, being a participating member of your local rifle club is required to keep your firearms licence. They say it's to keep up to date on health and safety issues, etc. I've always thought it's so your mates will notice if you start to go funny. Maybe that would be a gentle first step? Isolation = No guns?
Yeah it would be nice to institute something like that, but there would definitely hangups in the implementation. For example, there exist many organizations where the only thing needed for active membership is a monthly fee. Just like in Australia, there are many remote areas of the US where the nearest neighbor may be 40 miles away. There are always problems with restricting the ability of any citizen to own guns, and a mandate to interact with others would probably not go over well. It'd definitely be worth looking into on a state level, I think. It would probably be best as a community initiative, though.
I, too, feel that a change to the constitution is not a change we need right now. The issue is solely with NRA policy and the impact they have on legislators. Were Wayne LaPierre to be taken down by a "wide stance" scandal it would probably save thousands of lives over the long run. I'm probably older than you. I fired my first gun around 30 years ago. Back then, rednecks with lots of guns were crazy-ass deviants. now? Now we acquit the fuckin' Bundys. It used to be that guns were something you shot. Now they might as well be a fuckin' kirpan. We don't fix that by changing the laws. We fix that by changing the culture and the angry white "values voters" own that conversation.
The constitutional amendment process is damn near broken. It should be made (slightly) easier. And before people say that an easier amendment process would enable religious fundies recognizing the United States as a Christian nation, or whatever else... I appreciate the point that a looser amending process could enable all sorts of amendments, including some I don't like, and we should defer to our wise framers. But I'm tired of the lack of nuance--"deference to the framers" is a semantic stop sign. You can't even get to suggesting what a revised amendment process should look like before you get dug-in heels. I'm a big fan of the revolutionary generation, but this tack encourages a dogmatic obedience to an imperfect system. As it stands, a bare majority in the 13 least populous states can stop an amendment that otherwise receives broad national support. That amounts to 2% of the population. I'll literally quote Scalia when I say, "It should be hard to amend the constitution... but not THAT hard." Some amendments that received broad support and came close to ratification include the equal rights amendment, DC statehood, and child labor restrictions during the early part of the 20th century. Ironically, the latter policy was accomplished by a judicially active court granting expansive commerce clause power to Congress to regulate child labor laws. That's another argument for a somewhat looser amendment process: Advocates for certain rights pursue a Supreme Court remedy--framing their proposals as being reflected in the constitution rather than needing to be explicitly added--which encourages judicial activism. And if one claims to be wary about "policies being enacted that we're not a fan of" then would they not prefer a slightly more sensible amendment process to a non-elected body of Justices reading this right or that between the lines of the constitution? This argument is independent of the pragmatism of amending or repealing the second amendment. There are probably millions of second amendment absolutists.