Brian M Downing
A spate of gun-related killings, especially recent school massacres, have led to frustration, anger, and demands for more gun control. Calls abound for enhanced screening of gun purchases and for banning assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines. John Paul Stevens, a retired Supreme Court Justice, knows such measures won’t do much.
Stevens has taken the bold step of calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment, the most disputed element of the Bill of Rights. He knows that far-reaching gun control efforts will run into the wall of the Second Amendment, which has been ruled as establishing an individual right to gun ownership. No repeal, no real gun control.
Stevens said repeal would be “simple” but he must know it would be anything but. If he doesn’t, he will. In any case, he might not know how destructive repeal would be on an already deeply divided country.
The repeal process
Repealing an amendment requires the same long, difficult procedure as enacting one. The Founders wanted it to be arduous. They didn’t want the public and politicians altering basic principles without a strong, determined consensus.
Repeal requires two-thirds majorities in the House of Representatives and Senate. Presently, the GOP holds a 45-seat advantage in the House and a 2-seat edge in the Senate. Growing national ire and timely mobilization of young voters may bring a shift in both houses of Congress in November, perhaps even a momentous one. Even so, two-thirds majorities will not come easy, not only because of NRA clout but also because tens of millions of gun owners oppose repeal.
The process has another obstacle, perhaps the most formidable one. Three-fourths of state legislatures must ratify repeal. That means 38 states must approve it. Put another way, only 13 states can prevent it. They need not vote down repeal; they need only refrain from ratifying it – through delays or refusal to bring it to the floor. Picture a map of red states. Repeal may be relegated to the same constitutional limbo as the Equal Rights Amendment. It passed both Houses in 1972 but has languished in state legislatures ever since.
Repeal and our imperfect union
If repeal were somehow able to navigate the tortuous process, what then? Congress could enact sweeping gun control laws. Presumably, gun owners would be required to turn in their arms, probably with some sort of compensation. Many would dutifully abide, reluctantly or not, and the 300 million guns in the country would begin to disappear. Or so it’s hoped.
Many millions of Americans will never abide by repeal. They may see the country as too crime-ridden, wish to retain a symbol of family military service or frontier heritage, want to resist the rising supremacy of a traditionless postmodern culture, or one day fend off a dangerous, illiberal state.
Enforcement of anti-gun laws would be as difficult and long as the amendment process. Local police, ATF personnel, and coordinated teams would come up against fierce resistance in many parts of the country from hunters and veterans. Again, picture a map of red states. There could be thousands of casualties, on both sides, and skirmishes might go on interminably. The country would be torn apart even more than it already is.
• • •
Justice Stevens believes that gun control legislation is not the answer to the spate of mass shootings and that constitutional change and disarmament is the answer. He recognizes the public ire and youthful mobilization and wants to channel them into constitutional change. He sees himself and his adherents as the vanguard of progress and reason, and opponents as defenders of prejudice and backwardness.
Stevens and his adherents do not comprehend that America is dangerously polarized and the other side is not foreordained to give in and disappear. Red states do not concur with his opinion and will dissent – violently. Things are falling apart fast and that must be taken into account.
The country is deeply divided over traditions, race, fiscal responsibility, law enforcement, school curriculums, interpretations of history, matters of war and peace, and abortion. Government is becoming paralyzed and dysfunctional. Repealing the Second Amendment will not solve the country’s murderousness, but it will lead to many states seeking a less imperfect union.
Copyright 2018 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who has written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks to Susan Ganosellis.