Texas A&M University Law Professor Mary Margaret “Meg” Penrose (Photo credit: Hugh McQuad)
Guns dot com
Texas A&M University Law Professor Mary Margaret Penrose said it’s time to repeal and replace the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution at a Friday symposium held at the University of Connecticut’s School of Law.
Citing recent mass shootings, such as the one at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and the one at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, Penrose argued that the government and the courts were not doing enough to curb gun-related violence.
According to CT News Junkie, Penrose first asked the audience of lawyers and law school students, “How many of them felt the legislative and judicial responses to gun violence have been effective?”
Not a single person raised their hand, allegedly.
Then she said, “I think I’m in agreement with you and, unfortunately, drastic times require drastic measures … I think the Second Amendment is misunderstood and I think it’s time today, in our drastic measures, to repeal and replace that Second Amendment.”
Penrose, a self-described “agnostic” on the issue of guns, went on to say that nixing one’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms would give the state’s more latitude to decide for themselves how to regulate gun ownership and concealed carry.
Repeal? That implies that Congress can just wave their magic wand and make it go away. I would hope she is smarter than that, and knows that it would take an amendment to the Constitution. If it's an amendment she wants, then I am all in favor of her and her supporters making that attempt. She would not get my vote, but it would be an attempt I could actually respect.
ReplyDelete"Penrose, a self-described “agnostic” on the issue of guns, went on to say that nixing one’s Constitutional right to keep and bear arms would give the state’s more latitude to decide for themselves how to regulate gun ownership and concealed carry."
ReplyDeleteThe only thing that is currently restricted due to second amendment protections is the actual banning of firearms. New Jersey for example has a de facto ban on carry permits because besides police having discretion to deny permits, you also have to appear before a judge and convince him too.
Then you have cities like New York City that have very restrictive laws just to possess a firearm. So, if she finds these limitations to restrictive, you could come to the conclusion that she favors states having the freedom to completely ban possession of firearms. It appears the Governor of Connecticut feels the same way.
States have plenty of lattitude to do the right thing now. What Penrose apparently doesn't realize is that gun laws would remain basically the same. Four states out of five would continue to have good laws, and the slave states would sink deeper into tyranny. The chief value of the Second Amendment is its power over the repressive states.
ReplyDeleteBut please do run candidates who vow to vote for a repeal. Mikeb, your side knows what a disaster that would be for you. That's why you snivel and scheme around the margins.
This is simply silly.
ReplyDeleteCare to elaborate?
DeleteI think it would be sufficient if the true meaning of the 2A were clarified once and for all - anachronistic and meaningless. No need for repeal.
ReplyDeleteIf we can define the Second Amendment as meaningless, then we can do the same for all other amendments and articles. Fortunately, we don't live in the kind of tyranny where that is possible--yet.
DeleteOk, and how do we "clarify it once and for all" if not by the Supreme Court? Should we have congress pass this "clarification" and then have the states ratify it?
DeleteWell, the reversals of Heller and McDonald would be the first steps. Then I suppose other cases would "clarify" the meaninglessness of the amendment.
DeleteBut your side keeps telling us that our rights are what the Court says they are. Heller and McDonald declared that owning firearms is an individual right. Don't you have to accept that?
DeleteBut I keep forgetting that you can't be consistent.
If the courts don't have to follow precedent, and can over rule previous court's decisions every time the makeup shifts, then that's not exactly "once and for all". If you reverse Heller, we'll just double reverse you right back later.
DeleteThe Supreme Court was wrong in those decisions. They were made possible only because the Court happened to have a lop-sided balance in favor of the gun lobby. One day, and pretty soon too, that'll change.
DeleteMikeb remains cheerful, despite the evidence. The problem is that cheerful evil is the worst kind.
DeleteBut my point was that if those decisions can get reversed because the balance of the court changes, the it can get put back when the balance changes back. How do you make it "once and for all"?
DeleteGood question. I think eventually, say 50 or 100 years hence, we'll have the "once and for all" thing. But for the foreseeable, I'm afraid we're dependent on the balance of the Supreme Court. Fortunately for the good guys (liberals) the Republicans have fucked up their chances pretty well. Obama will be followed by another Democrat for 8 years and maybe beyond. You better enjoy these days while you can.
DeleteMikeb, you have a lot of faith. Sadly, it's in things not worthy of belief, but that's another matter.
DeleteMike - the recent rulings by the Supreme Court have started to clarify the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and apparently it is not anachronistic or meaningless. If you want to accomplish your true goal of total civilian disarmament, you will need to pass an Amendment that repeals the 2nd Amendment. I strongly encourage you to get lawmakers to state on the record that they are for this type of Amendment. It will really boost their chances of being elected.
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be forgetting that those historic rulings were approved by the slimmest of margins - one single vote. The Court was lopsided with conservative old codgers - this will change.
Delete"WASHINGTON — America’s historic health care overhaul, certain now to touch virtually every citizen’s life, narrowly survived an election-year battle Thursday at the Supreme Court with the improbable help of conservative Chief Justice John Roberts.
DeleteBut the ruling, by a 5-4 vote, also gave Republicans unexpected ammunition to energize supporters for the fall campaign against President Barack Obama, the bill’s champion — and for next year’s vigorous efforts to repeal the law as a new federal tax."
http://qctimes.com/news/local/supreme-court-upholds-obama-health-law-by---vote/article_6c1241f4-c10b-11e1-8fe9-0019bb2963f4.html
So would this be in danger also?
Five to four is still the law.
Delete