John Paul Stevens is wrong. Trying to repeal the Second Amendment would be a pointless mistake.
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens has just done the NRA and its allies a great favor: In an opinion piece in The New York Times, he proposed to repeal the Second Amendment.
“That simple but dramatic action would move Saturday’s marchers closer to their objective than any other possible reform,” argued Stevens, who dissented in the landmark cases recognizing an individual right to own firearms for self-defense.
He’s wrong on both substantive and political grounds. Pursuing this option would be a foolish waste of the energies generated by outrage at the Parkland shootings.
In the first place, it’s politically impossible. A constitutional amendment requires ratification by 38 states. Donald Trump carried 30. To repeal the Second Amendment, you’d have to get every state that voted for Hillary Clinton, plus 18 that didn’t, to agree. For the foreseeable future, that has zero chance of happening.
The second defect is any such effort would inflame the worst fears of gun owners and those sympathetic to gun rights. Many of them agree on the need for more regulation — or could be persuaded. Once the debate is about scrapping a constitutional right, though, many will assume that any seemingly reasonable new regulation is just a step toward total confiscation.
Most important, repeal is unnecessary. In those decisions that Stevens decries, the Supreme Court said the Constitution allows various types of regulation. The changes that are being seriously proposed today are not likely to be struck down for infringing on the Second Amendment.
Background checks have been required for purchases from licensed dealers for decades. The imposition of age requirements is not controversial. Four federal appeals courts have upheld state and local bans on assault weapons.
The federal ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines didn’t disappear because it was ruled unconstitutional. It disappeared because Congress didn’t renew it. The measures offered by President Barack Obama after the Sandy Hook massacre failed for lack of support in Congress, not because of any constitutional defects.
Most if not all of the permissive policies opposed by those advocating gun control came about because of decisions made by democratically elected bodies — and they can be changed the same way. The Second Amendment is a tempting target for some, but it’s not the problem.
Steve Chapman, a member of the Tribune Editorial Board, blogs at www.chicagotribune.com/chapman.
No comments:
Post a Comment