The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment

The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment - The Washington Post:

By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

Stevens Biography:
Nominated by President Nixon to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, succeeding Elmer J. Schnackenberg, confirmed by the United States Senate on October 14, 1970; and took oath of office on November 2, 1970.

Nominated by President Ford as Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court on December 1, 1975; confirmed by the United States Senate on December 17, 1975; and took oath of office on December 19, 1975.

Stevens on The Second Amendment:

(I'm not convinced that I agree with Justice Stevens in regards to the meaning of the Second Amendment.  He seems to believe that .. no, let me quote what he SAYS he believes):

 The Second Amendment expressly endorsed the substantive common-law rule that protected the citizen’s right (and duty) to keep and bear arms when serving in a state militia. In its decision in Heller, however, the majority interpreted the amendment as though its draftsmen were primarily motivated by an interest in protecting the common-law right of self-defense. But that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state. The notion that the states were concerned about possible infringement of that right by the federal government is really quite absurd.

[emphasis added]

I did not get a sense, in the original document, of how "... that common-law right is a procedural right that has always been available to the defendant in criminal proceedings in every state".

I do wish he had been more forthcoming with his reasoning.

My understanding is that American Citizens have had to deal with governmental infringements on the 2nd Amendment for .. always?  Elsewhere in the article, he cites Miller as an example, and I have to say that I am not persuaded by his casual reference as MILLER was NEVER defended in appeals court, so the decision went to the Government by default.  But still, it stands as a precedent, and must be heeded by stare decisis.

My interpretation (you are invited to debate) is that Justice Stevens does NOT believe that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right of citizens to arm themselves for the protection of their lives, their family and their property ... but only in defense of the nation and only while serving as a "member of the militia".

Here are other remarks which Justice Stevens included last year to clarify his position vis-a-vis the "anomalous " arming of civilians,  Essentially, he proposed to amend the second amendment to limit the rights of citizens to "keep and bear arms".

 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.

[emphasis in the original]
[highlights added]

No, I'm not making a statement or an argument.  Merely providing some information about the retires Justice of SCOUSA who was nominated and confirmed by Republican President(s).

Well .. Justice Stevens DOES seem a bit testy, in my mind.  But I'm sure that if he were to read what *_I_* have written, he would describe me as "testy" as well.  (And I would consider that a compliment!)