How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment

[5.56NATO]

"A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.


Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.



So how does legal change happen in America? We’ve seen some remarkably successful drives in recent years—think of the push for marriage equality, or to undo campaign finance laws. Law students might be taught that the court is moved by powerhouse legal arguments or subtle shifts in doctrine. The National Rifle Association’s long crusade to bring its interpretation of the Constitution into the mainstream teaches a different lesson: Constitutional change is the product of public argument and political maneuvering. The pro-gun movement may have started with scholarship, but then it targeted public opinion and shifted the organs of government. By the time the issue reached the Supreme Court, the desired new doctrine fell like a ripe apple from a tree.
http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...#ixzz32MWTH0QW





They can spin it all they want, but the 2nd says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not state approved people, not national guard people, not fedz, people.

[NAPOTS]

I find it odd how those that continue to spout off the nonsense that the 2nd ammendment applying to the average citizen are ignoring 200 years of history where firearms were widely owned by the public. This was true BEFORE the 2nd amendment was even written.

[Kadmos]

I think he's right that the supreme court ignored the issue until a time when society was ready to more or less accept it.

It took them forever to state what was obvious to us, that the 2nd is an individual right. It's the theory of Judicial restraint. Let congress make it's laws until the people are really starting to say "foul".

The courts upheld Jim Crow laws, they upheld separate but equal, until most of the public opinion was ready to change. Sure they come off as "progressive" sometimes, but often only because those opposing it scream the loudest. The bulk of America was fine with the civil rights act, but the few who weren't made a huge stink over it.

Just like for the Heller opinion. Most didn't know or care that it happened, we celebrated a bit, and those few against it blew off steam shouting against it.

And it will be, and has been so far, the same for marriage equality. Most shrug it off and say "whatever", a few celebrate, and a few throw tantrums. But this wouldn't have happened 30 years ago.

It's not like the Constitution changed over that time, it's that society changed and stopped seeing it as a religious or moral issue into seeing it as a civil rights issue

[Krupski]

They can spin it all they want, but the 2nd says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Not state approved people, not national guard people, not fedz, people.

Michael Waldman [the author] is president of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law.

Well what do you expect? A Jew professor from a liberal New York City college. Surrender your guns. Climb aboard the Nazi trains. C'mon... pack it in tighter! That's what they want.

"Never again". Oh yeah? Just how, exactly, does a disarmed person say "never again"?

[Krupski]

And it will be, and has been so far, the same for marriage equality. Most shrug it off and say "whatever", a few celebrate, and a few throw tantrums. But this wouldn't have happened 30 years ago.

Further proof of America's degenerating moral values.

[Krupski]

I think he's right that the supreme court ignored the issue until a time when society was ready to more or less accept it.

Remember, United States vs Miller 1939 was initially WON due to a (correct) reading of the Constitution.

It was only on appeal after Miller and his attorney didn't show up, and after the US attorney "technically lied" and stated that Millers PARTICULAR shotgun (serial number) was not a military weapon and therefore not 2A protected (and the clueless judge bought it) that Miller lost.

And for years after that, judges just kept using that tragic mistake as legal precedent.

FINALLY the SCOTUS and Heller got it right. Nothing "changed" in the Constitution or the people's opinion or "interpretation" of it.

Just how smart does one have to be to know what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" means?

[NAPOTS]

I suppose all of those privately owned arms used by milita men to fight the revolution are a myth too. or rifles and pistols carried by frontiers men. Or the firearms personally owned by countless presidents, members of congress, AND judges. Must all be an NRA myth.

[El Laton Caliente]

I suppose all of those privately owned arms used by milita men to fight the revolution are a myth too. or rifles and pistols carried by frontiers men. Or the firearms personally owned by countless presidents, members of congress, AND judges. Must all be an NRA myth.

Or that Letters of Mark did not apply to citizens owning ships of war with up to over 100 cannon...

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I think he's right that the supreme court ignored the issue until a time when society was ready to more or less accept it.

It took them forever to state what was obvious to us, that the 2nd is an individual right. It's the theory of Judicial restraint. Let congress make it's laws until the people are really starting to say "foul".

The courts upheld Jim Crow laws, they upheld separate but equal, until most of the public opinion was ready to change. Sure they come off as "progressive" sometimes, but often only because those opposing it scream the loudest. The bulk of America was fine with the civil rights act, but the few who weren't made a huge stink over it.

Just like for the Heller opinion. Most didn't know or care that it happened, we celebrated a bit, and those few against it blew off steam shouting against it.

And it will be, and has been so far, the same for marriage equality. Most shrug it off and say "whatever", a few celebrate, and a few throw tantrums. But this wouldn't have happened 30 years ago.

It's not like the Constitution changed over that time, it's that society changed and stopped seeing it as a religious or moral issue into seeing it as a civil rights issue

us? Give US a break. If you get your way and Hillary is the next president, the 2nd amendment is GONE. 2-3 picks for the SCOTUS and your kind will wipe the individual right off the paper.