“Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

By John Paul Stevens April 11, 2014

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

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.

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.

The Right to Bear Arms

It doesn’t make any difference whether mass killings are called “a form or terrorism” or “a “hate crime.” The victims are dead or seriously injured. Americans live in a country that permits the use of guns to kill people. The argument that “it’s people who kill people, it’s the not guns who do the killing” is simply another way of defending gun ownership.

There really is only one reason to own a gun and that is to protect yourself from violence. Relying on the police won’t work since they can’t arrive at any destination in seconds. I know you may argue that shooting at a target is fun and collecting weapons is a hobby and you would be correct if there was little chance that those weapons would ever be used to kill or maim. The problem is that hundreds of people are killed annually because of hate rather than for protection. No other industrial country in the world has a gun related death rate near the rate of the United States.

Cross the border into Canada and you are stopped by their border patrol and asked if you have any weapons in your car. They search your car trunk and your suitcases to confirm your words. The record is clear. Canadian deaths from weapons is about 2.22 per 100,000 people. In the United States the rate is 10.64 (2013).

The killing of nine Black people in a church is no different from the killing of audience members of a movie theater in Colorado or Sikh’s in their temple near Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

“If only those people had been armed” is the argument offered by the NRA (National Rifleman’s Association). They would have had the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School carrying a sidearm to protect themselves and the children.

In other words we should behave like an old west movie with everyone prepared to draw a weapon.

What is more astonishing is that our congress lacks the will to stop the killing. The right to bear arms grew out of a concern that the government might become tyrannical to the point where the public feared for their freedom.

The argument is not supportable in the 21^st century. The weapons the government has in its possession are unavailable to the public. An armed insurrection is not possible today unless part of the army itself decided to start a rebellion.

I keep hearing our politicians tell us that the United States is the greatest country in the world. On what basis do they make that statement? There is no more freedom here than in other western nations. Guns have never helped to preserve our freedom except in war.

America’s Love of Guns

No one is concerned about the consequences of allowing everyone to own multiple weapons even those who are not fit psychologically, mentally, or physically to handle the responsibility.

It wasn’t too long ago that Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was the target of an attack by a deranged gunman. Everyone remembers the tragedy at Columbine High School in Littlerock, Colorado. Now 71 people are killed or wounded by another madman. Still no one says, “Enough.” The American Bar Association posts on its website “The rate of death from firearms in the United States is eight times higher than that in its economic counterparts in other parts of the world.” Bowing down to the Second Amendment and the NRA is an inexplicable behavior.

The Constitution was written in 1787. What were the weapons of 1776 and still in use in 1787? Artillery and Gun boats??? Wrong!!! The historically correct answer is: Flintlock pistols and Flintlock Muskets.

There were no cars, no telephones and no railroads. The industrial revolution was not even an idea. So today in the 21st century we hold this document, the Constitution, as if it was handed down by Moses. Unless you think the country will be the victim of a new king or a dictator what exactly is the purpose of the Second Amendment? Precisely why would anyone need to own 2 Glock pistols, a semi-automatic rifle, a shot-gun and 6,000 rounds of ammunition? Well, there might be a reason – you want to kill a theater full of people for no particular reason.