3 ms·

The Supreme Court first ruled in 2008[1] that the right to personal ownership of guns is a valid reading of the 2nd Amendment (devoid of any military/militia pu

by cyphar 8y ago

The Supreme Court first ruled in 2008[1] that the right to personal ownership of guns is a valid reading of the 2nd Amendment (devoid of any military/militia purpose -- a departure from previous Supreme Court decisions). While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment. So, opposing the second amendment is the only way to effectively oppose the rulings related to it (assuming that's what you want to oppose). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

justin66 8y ago
It would be more accurate to say advocating for a different interpretation of the second amendment. At times, some do advocate for the repeal of an amendment as well, and in that case the "opposed to x amendment" verbiage seems a bit more appropriate. There have been a few groups calling for constitutional conventions in the past few years and I think there are some examples of this there. I don't think actually repealing the second amendment has ever been a remotely mainstream idea in the United States. > While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment. The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.
- cyphar 8y ago
  > The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates. Heller was not a change of mind by the supreme court (it ruled on a different matter to previous rulings -- which had explicitly skirted around the problem of civilian ownership of weapons outside of a military context). However, even if it were a change of mind -- the supreme court changing its rulings is an incredibly rare event because such events question the finality and authority of their decisions. Hence why I said "the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment" -- because waiting for the supreme court to change their mind about it (while technically possible and sometimes the case) is hardly a useful policy position for a political argument.

by cyphar 8y ago

justin66 8y ago

It would be more accurate to say advocating for a different interpretation of the second amendment. At times, some do advocate for the repeal of an amendment as well, and in that case the "opposed to x amendment" verbiage seems a bit more appropriate. There have been a few groups calling for constitutional conventions in the past few years and I think there are some examples of this there. I don't think actually repealing the second amendment has ever been a remotely mainstream idea in the United States. > While it is correct to argue that Supreme Court decisions are "case law", the Supreme Court is the final appellate court in the US -- so the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment. The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates.

cyphar 8y ago
> The supreme court does change their mind about things, as the Heller decision demonstrates. Heller was not a change of mind by the supreme court (it ruled on a different matter to previous rulings -- which had explicitly skirted around the problem of civilian ownership of weapons outside of a military context). However, even if it were a change of mind -- the supreme court changing its rulings is an incredibly rare event because such events question the finality and authority of their decisions. Hence why I said "the only way to change their decision would be through a constitutional amendment" -- because waiting for the supreme court to change their mind about it (while technically possible and sometimes the case) is hardly a useful policy position for a political argument.