Bob Levy, Chairman of the Cato Institute, and someone I count as a friend, calls former Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens’ call to repeal the Second Amendment “needlessly provocative, counterproductive and hostile to core American liberties.” I couldn’t agree more.
Bob tangled with Stevens during the famous D.C. vs. Heller trial, where Bob organized and supported the pro-Second Amendment side of the case. His expertise on the issue is unmatched. He writes at Cato.org (abridged):
Perhaps the most blatant symptom of the cultural divide in America is the post-Parkland call to repeal the Second Amendment — most recently jump-started by retired Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens. He writes in The New York Times that repeal “would be simple” and “would eliminate the only legal rule that protects sellers of firearms in the United States.” That’s indisputably incorrect on both counts.
The notion that repeal would be simple is a fantasy. Two-thirds of both houses of Congress would have to craft the repeal, which would then have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. That’s inconceivable in a country that has more guns than people.
Not only is repeal unattainable, it would also be ineffective and unnecessary.
What makes the Stevens manifesto especially irresponsible is that it would rupture the social fabric in this country — leading to turmoil, lawlessness and violence.
In a nutshell, the Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment guarantees individual gun owners’ rights, but it does not preclude reasonable regulations. Repeal would be needlessly provocative, counterproductive and hostile to core American liberties.
Read more here.