A new SCOTUS Reinterpretation of the 2nd is the only way true change shall come
Question is how many new justices will it take to have a complete change in the
Constitution.
As the Gun fetishers always whine the 2nd, the 2nd, all it takes is a re-interpretation to get past that definition, and once that definition is in the books, none of the other talking points matter at all.
It means of course a continuation of President Obama's agenda for many decades to come, to insure, once change happens, it never gets rearranged back.
Will it be a one justice swing, making it 5 to 4 liberal? Will it take two to make it 6 to 3?
Of course, any past statements made by any justice is only meaningful on what the case directly in front of them is.
But as long as the next President is one with the same agenda as this one, and that would mean 12 more years minimum, there should be four or five different justices during this time period(and Scalia and Thomas will be very old by then, so logic dictates they will be gone from the bench, Kennedy will retire, and two democratic judges (meaning five new appointments most likely in 12 years).
Making it at least 6 to 3 liberal.
Because one knows in their heart, until the 2nd is reinterpreted, major change won't happen.
So while not having a litmus test, indeed, there should be a litmus test, because after all, the 2nd as it stands now says private people could own shoulder to air missiles and bunker busting bombs under the guise of the 2nd.
So we need to vote new candidates in, need to keep the senate, reclaim the house, and by natural process, change the courts (lower to top) and governors, assembly, etc.
Each and every one, to end the madness of bullets and guns in the street.
Because once it is done, then one can say they truly support the 2nd.
(And after all, it was a recent reinterpretation that gave us the fool hearted new rationale for guns in the first place, not the original meaning which never said private citizens and handguns.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)just by looking at how the gun/NRA lovers are changing their words around.
You can tell what makes the NRA and their synchophants sweat by how much hatred for individuals who go against the gun, and how they backtrack and desperately seek new soundbytes after their old ones as proverbially shot to pieces.
Loudly
(2,436 posts)After making our bed with expansive "rights" in Heller and McDonald, we need leading cases in the area of manufacture, distribution, importation, retail sale, etc. which give the executive branch the authority it needs to generally cut off the supply of new product and establish a national gun registry.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Ban the manufacturing and import of semi auto and high capacity civilian weapons and tax the heck out of sales. Of course the gunners will cry over this and man-splain how it can't be done, but it can.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)Heller was one reinterpretation,and no, that is not the end all to end all, sorry about it, as
all it takes is a new SCOTUS to swing the vote to 5 to 4 the other way, or 2 or 3 or 4
then none of the other things matter
There is ZERO reasons for any private person to have a gun and bullets, in the streets, or in the house.
NONE.
It might be as little as ONE changed SCOTUS, or might take 3 or 4, but the end is near for the bullets and guns.
The other way to do it would be to increase the USSUpreme court to 13 (which is legally possible, the #9 is not set in stone either).
All it takes is a new mind set.
Then, with a new reinterpretation, we can bypass any/all whines.
working for a bullet free America.
too bad one more person, or 100,000 more people will die before it is achieved.
But, it will be.
And it might be as little as ONE person to do it.
Serve The Servants
(328 posts)Why ask for a pony when you can have a UNICORN?!?
Kingofalldems
(39,203 posts)
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)graham: A new SCOTUS Reinterpretation of the 2nd is the only way true change shall come
Yes, they would have to reverse themselves from heller 2008 & mcdonald 2010, like what they did re dred scott.
Hate to bear bad news, tho some already aware - let's just hope it's a passing fad on the part of justice elena kagan:
Scalia also commented on the hunting ability of Justice Elena Kagan, who has joined Scalia to shoot quail, pheasant and larger animals. Last year, on a trip to Wyoming, they had a license to go after antelope and mule deer. But there were none to be found. Instead, "she ended up killing a white-tailed doe, which she could have done in my driveway" in suburban Virginia, Scalia said.
He said Kagan, who never handled a gun before joining the court, is just a beginner, but "she dropped that doe in just one shot."
My heart sorta sank when I first read that, usually the worse case scenario plays itself out, but as I said we can hope it's just a passing fad as it is with most people. The worst case of course, she becomes an individual rights justice.
Please don't kill any more animals elena, you don't need the meat, you don't need the skill, you don't fit the bill - you're a justice & a life saver not a killer.
graham: There is ZERO reasons for any private person to have a gun and bullets, in the streets, or in the house. NONE.
I think that's taking it a bit too far, graham; I think a gun in the house, properly stored & ammo separate, is up to an individual --- and doesnt' hinge on any supposed right conferred by the 2ndA.
I object to unfettered use & distribution of guns, and oppose carrying concealed without demonstrated need.
I would agree with you somewhat if you are young parents with small children, then don't own guns in the house, or maybe one & keep it locked up in a safe, unloaded.
markeybrown
(8 posts)to change/reinterpret things that are contrary to how they have been interpreted many times(on various levels) before. Not just gun stuff either.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)If not for changing the interpretations of the Constitution, and many times amending to circumvent a USSC ruling (the Fourteenth invalidating Dred Scott), this country would be even more regressive than it is.
If we went back to the original intent of the Founders for the Second, it would be interpreted solely as a collective, not individual right, as written. The expansions of those rights came under re-interpretation.
graham4anything
(11,464 posts)It meant the National Guard and Fema (both of which indeed should be fully armed, to deal with the rightwing extremists who want to overthrow the government.)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)isn't obsolete, or that private citizens didn't mean 'white males' of certain ages, but don't hurt your arguments by trying to change history, or the facts with regards to the 2nd.
eta: