Santa Fe New Mexican

Repeal the Second Amendment

-

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 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.

That support is a clear sign to lawmakers to enact legislatio­n prohibitin­g civilian ownership of semi-automatic 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.”

During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969-86, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizati­ons like the National Rifle Associatio­n disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characteri­zed the NRA as perpetrati­ng “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

In 2008, the Supreme Court overturned Burger’s and others’ long-settled understand­ing of the Second Amendment’s limited reach by ruling, in District of Columbia v. Heller, that there was an individual right to bear arms. I was among the four dissenters.

That decision — which I remain convinced was wrong and certainly was debatable — has provided the NRA with a propaganda weapon of immense power. Overturnin­g that decision via a constituti­onal amendment to get rid of 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.

That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform. It would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the U.S. — unlike every other market in the world. It would make our schoolchil­dren safer than they have been since 2008 and honor the memories of the many, indeed far too many, victims of recent gun violence.

Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1975 until he retired in 2010. This was written for The New York Times.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States