‘Repeal’ or Reinvent: Threats to Second Amendment Worsen

Looking back on 2019, one thing is clear: efforts to redefine or remove constitutionally protected gun rights are growing and becoming more radical. Cities are being forced to declare themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries as activists and lawmakers institute bans or call for stricter regulation.  

These developments make each fight for an individuals’ right to bear arms that much more crucial. Activists and liberal publications aren’t just calling for gun control measures anymore – some are advocating outright “repeal” of the Second Amendment. 

That’s what liberal, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens did. He wrote a New York Times op-ed in March urging protesters angry over gun violence to “seek more effective and more lasting reform.”  

Those demonstrators want a higher minimum age for gun purchases and mandatory background checks among other things. That was insufficient for Justice Stevens. 

“They should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment,” Stevens declared.  

Media outlets like NPR and The Nation bolstered his extremism. The idea is spreading. As recently as November 2019, The Hartford Courant published a local citizen’s op-ed demanding a full repeal of the Second Amendment calling it “a full-measure solution to gun terror.” 

Thankfully, our Founders designed a system of government that makes Amendment “repeal” possible, but extremely challenging to accomplish.  

Surely, sensing that tactic will fail (at least, for now), others are attempting to redefine the issue. The Atlantic published two Yale law students’ efforts to create a “pro-gun-control constitutional narrative” by turning arguments for the right to self-defense upside down.  

“Gun regulation offers another such path to self-defense, one vastly more efficacious and preferred by the American public,” they claimed. 

It’s absurd, of course to argue it would be “self-defense” to have the government “limiting access” to firearms. There’s nothing “individual” about that. It’s also a sobering reminder of the high stakes as the Supreme Court hears the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. V. City of New York in December. That is when the Court will rule on New York States’ “premises license” and effective ban on transporting legally owned firearms. 

MSLF submitted an amicus brief in the case because a victory for gun rights in NYC will help preserve the constitutionally protected and natural rights of all Americans. Meanwhile, in Colorado we are also helping several Boulder, Colorado residents seek justice in federal court

Boulder imposed a sweeping ban on certain types of firearms and magazine and unconstitutionally increased the minimum age for gun possession and purchase to 21. That act infringed the Second Amendment protected rights of many upstanding Boulder citizens, including Jon Caldara, a well-known member of the community, Tyler Faye, a competitive shooter on the University of Colorado shooting team, and Mark Ringer, a part-time law enforcement officer and law student. They, along with other upstanding citizens, were turned into “criminals” overnight by Boulder politicians. 

In September, MSLF argued at the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals for the restoration of Caldara, Faye, Ringer and every Boulder residents’ rights. 

Explore this case

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. City of New York

View Case
Explore this case

Caldara v. City of Boulder

View Case

Join the Fight

Since 1977, MSLF has fought to protect private property rights, individual liberties, and economic freedom. MSLF is a nonprofit public interest legal foundation. We represent clients pro bono and receive no government funding. Make your 100% tax deductible contribution today and join the fight.

Donate Now

Explore More

New York City Still Running From Supreme Court Review of Gun Laws

MSLF attorney Cody Wisniewski writes today for National Review: Most likely, city officials realize that they can’t win at the Supreme Court and are trying to preemptively cut their losses before they set “bad precedent” for the gun control movement across the nation. Given the Supreme Court’s nearly decade-long silence on the topic, this case…

New definition of “habitat” is a victory for common sense

Federal wildlife conservation officials are proposing—for the first time—to amend their regulations in order to define what “habitat” means under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”).  MSLF joins the chorus of working Americans who see this as welcome news for a number of reasons.  Despite the predictable outcry from environmental groups, the proposed habitat definition will likely help species conservation.  The…

VIDEO: MSLF’s Supreme Court Roundup

The first half of 2020 has produced some of the most important and surprising Supreme Court decisions in years. On major issues such as firearms, school vouchers, and religious freedom, what the nation’s highest court did (and didn’t) do this year will have a huge impact on our country for years to come. There were…

News Updates