March For Our Lives

[BoSoxGal]

Turning on the TV today was the first time in a very long time that I’ve felt hopeful for the future.

All kids, no adults on stage. A lot of very motivated new voters going to the polls this November; GOP and NRA need to be afraid- makes me wonder what they’ll do to try to change the conversation.

The Guardian US edition is being edited this weekend by the teen journalists from Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS - lots of good reading:

https://www.theguardian.com/us


Here’s a great piece from the Globe about how we are doing things right in Massachusetts, and how other states might, too: http://apps.bostonglobe.com/opinion/gra ... ven-steps/


And this, from the March For Our Lives:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.co ... index.html

My favorite is this one, which apparently was being handed out by Samantha Bee’s crew:

[Bicycle Bill]

-"BB"-

[Bicycle Bill]

In an EIGHT YEAR period, lawn darts ("Jarts") were implicated in the deaths of fewer than ten people.  As a result, the CPSC issued regulations banning them in this country.  You cannot legally buy them in America or import them from outside the USA.

However, in a ten-minute period in Las Vegas on October 1st 2017, semi-automatic weapons, high-capacity magazines, bump stocks, and high-velocity ammo were responsible for the deaths of 58 people.  Time for the CPSC to step in and impose another ban, right?  HA!!  So long as you are over 18 and can pass an anemic background check, you can still legally buy as many of these as you want and can afford.

Today's marches and rallies show that I'm not the only person who believes there is something wrong with this kind of 'logic'.

-"BB"-

[ex-khobar Andy]

We were at the one in Columbia MO. I checked the paper to see what time it started: the article began: "Dozens of people are expected to march at 1:00 PM . . . . " - my estimate was over 1000. I am hopeful that something will come of this.

[Econoline]

[Lord Jim]

A lot of very motivated new voters going to the polls this November

Well, I'll believe that when I see it...

For decades, every election cycle I've seen predictions about how "this will be the year" that "the young voters" are really fired up and will turnout in big numbers, and every year come election day, it has never materialized:



https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/r ... erica.html

As that Census Bureau graph clearly shows, for the 36 years from 1980 to 2016 the "youth vote" turnout percentage has consistently lagged miserably behind any other age group (And this analysis defines "youth" as 18-29; if you limited it just to 18-21 the numbers would be even worse. And this graph also only covers Presidential years. Off year elections have lower turnouts for all voting groups, but young voters drop off the most.)

There are some indications in the special and off-year election results since the '16 Presidential election that this situation is improving somewhat, but whether that can be sustained and built-on through the midterms depends more on the local campaigns running effective out-reach efforts to younger voters than it does on pure "youth enthusiasm"....

[BoSoxGal]

Did you turn on your TV yesterday? 800+ events, worldwide - all made to happen by motivated youth using social media. All put together in the 40 days since the Parkland shooting. I think it’s insulting to the youth in the extreme to assume they’ll all get distracted between now and November and forget to show up at the polls.

We’ll see . . .



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... d-students

[Burning Petard]

BB, I think you are on to something. The 'ban bump stocks' cry has been sent to the ATF, as a firearm issue. I also think it should have been treated as a dangerous product, like Jarts, and banned by Consumer Products. However, this department is one of those places that POTUS staffed with a third-raters, with instructions to burn the place down.

snailgate.

[Econoline]

[Sue U]

O hai and Bee Tee Dub, guess what wild-eyed radical registered-Republican Nixon-appointee John Paul Stevens has to say?

Repeal the Second Amendment.

I didn't even have to twist his arm a little bit.

[Darren]

When Gore was running for president, I saw petitions in two convenience stores. There may have been more at other locations. That was the year Charlton Heston went to rallies in WV. He wasted his time. WV wasn't going to vote for Gore. Obama was smart enough to not campaign in the state. Hillary got the single digit salute when she came. As long as there are more red states than blue, the second amendment isn't going to be repealed.

Youths of today seem to think a vote in Congress is all that's required to amend the Constitution. How many people have the persistence to pursue something to fruition? Not many. If you doubt that check how many people file formal complaints with their state PUC when they have a legitimate beef. Not many. They'll make a phone call. There's no way most will go the formal route and stick with it to the point they get a hearing. In the state of Pennsylvania only one person went that route to protest the installation of a smart meter.

With short attention spans and lack of persistence even a well financed and organized demonstration like the March for Our Lives is a flash in the pan.

[Long Run]

In its annual article with common sense, Vox explains why the 2nd Amendment repeal discussion is a waste of time: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17168772/ ... nt-stevens. Short version: there is plenty of room within the Heller decision to ban assault rifles, add waiting periods, do better/more thorough background searches, etc. Going down the "never going to happen" repeal path just distracts from hard but achievable reform strategy.

[Big RR]

ignore, sorry

[Darren]

In its annual article with common sense, Vox explains why the 2nd Amendment repeal discussion is a waste of time: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/28/17168772/ ... nt-stevens. Short version: there is plenty of room within the Heller decision to ban assault rifles, add waiting periods, do better/more thorough background searches, etc. Going down the "never going to happen" repeal path just distracts from hard but achievable reform strategy.

Heller certified a virtually irreversible right. Miller is the one that may be reversed. It addressed short barrelled shotguns. The National Firearms act of 1934 didn't outlaw automatic weapons much less address semi-auto firearms which have been used for hunting since the late 1800's. It's a state issue. While many states allow residents to own automatic weapons as does the federal government. some do not. Same may happen with semi-auto firearms but that's where it gets tricky given semi-auto rifles have been used for hunting for over a hundred years. The much maligned AR15 and its numerous lookalikes are also legitimately used for hunting.

If Miller is reversed, the states banning the firearms covered by NFA have a problem which may also eliminate the possibility of making select semi-auto rifles illegal. Another relevant point is the ongoing spread of concealed carry. If national reciprocity is passed, the states lose territory again.

[Lord Jim]

O hai and Bee Tee Dub, guess what wild-eyed radical registered-Republican Nixon-appointee John Paul Stevens has to say?

Repeal the Second Amendment.

I didn't even have to twist his arm a little bit.

Stevens is still registered as a Republican? That's hilarious, I doubt he's voted for one in decades.

Speaking of decades, that's how long he was easily the most liberal member of the SC, and his dissent in Heller made clear that he doesn't believe that the 2nd amendment conveys an individual right. So seeing him come out for its repeal is about as surprising as hearing that Donald Trump has spoken a new falsehood...

Short version: there is plenty of room within the Heller decision to ban assault rifles, add waiting periods, do better/more thorough background searches, etc. Going down the "never going to happen" repeal path just distracts from hard but achievable reform strategy.

Amen to that...

The Second Amendment Repeal Fantasizers (hereafter to be referred to as SARFs) may get all warm and self-righteousy about themselves with that position, but we might as well have a discussion about lib's arctic US-Russian War or how the Cleveland Browns are going to win the 2019 Super Bowl, since those things are every bit as realistic...

I see some SARFs have started grasping at a really thin straw, by trying to compare changing people's minds about the constitutional right to own a firearm to the way attitudes were changed about gay marriage...

But this is an apples-to-vacuum cleaners comparison; in the one case you're talking about getting people to agree that an existing right should be extended to more people, while in the other, you're trying to persuade people to give up and/or take away an existing right enjoyed by themselves and others. Completely different sorts of propositions.

A better analogy would be the proposal that the citizens of Arizona may find themselves facing on the ballot; the question of whether or not they'd like to give up their right to nominate Senate candidates...

It would the be easy to dismiss the efforts of the SARFs as simply an irrelevance and a non-starter, but unfortunately what they're doing is actually worse than that. They're playing right into the hands of the NRA leadership and their allies who point to them and say, "See! We told you what people these people really want is to take away your right to protect yourself, and now they're admitting it!"

I'm sure nobody was happier to see Stevens' article than Wayne LaPierre; I expect it will figure prominently in the next NRA fundraising letter...

The SARFs are not just (as Long Run says) creating a "distraction"...

No matter how well meaning they may fancy themselves to be, by providing fuel for the NRA propaganda machine they are creating an actual hindrance for those (like your humble correspondent) who support a whole range of doable, Constitutional, commonsense gun and safety reforms that would have a genuinely meaningful impact on the degree of firearm carnage and lethality in our society.

ETA:

Nixon-appointee

Actually, he was a Ford appointee...

[Lord Jim]

I'll see your John Paul Stevens, and raise you Laurence Tribe...(Prof. Tribe is not now, nor has he ever been, a registered Republican)

(I'm posting his op-ed in it's entirety, because I know some folks have access issues with the WaPo:)

The Second Amendment isn’t the problem

By Laurence H. Tribe March 28 at 7:39 PM

Laurence H. Tribe is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor and a constitutional law professor at Harvard University.

Sometimes the young are wiser than their elders. Days after the survivors of the Stoneman Douglas slaughter stunned the world with the 800-city #MarchForOurLives and their brilliantly effective call for laws to stem the tide of gun violence, retired Supreme Court justice John Paul Stevens handed the gun lobby a rhetorical howitzer.

For years, that lobby’s most effective way to shoot down proposed firearms regulations has been to insist, falsely, that any new prohibition would lead to the eventual ban of all firearms. It is easy for those who revile our lax gun laws to lose sight of how many Americans cherish the right of law-abiding citizens to keep guns at home for self-defense or hunting.

The NRA’s strongest rallying cry has been: “They’re coming for our beloved Second Amendment.” Enter Stevens, stage left, boldly calling for the amendment’s demise, thereby giving aid and comfort to the gun lobby’s favorite argument.

The kids have been savvy enough to know better. They have reminded everyone that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms, even as interpreted by a conservative Supreme Court and the right-leaning lower federal courts, is far from absolute: It permits Congress and the states to outlaw what the court in District of Columbia v. Heller called “dangerous and unusual weapons” and those “not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” and to comprehensively regulate gun sales and the places guns can be carried.

Over the past decade, the court has let stand bans on semiautomatic assault rifles, limits on the sale of large magazines and restrictions on the number of guns a person can stockpile. It has left no doubt that Congress can require universal gun registration, that states can forbid gun sales to anyone under 21, and that government can red-flag potentially dangerous purchasers, ban concealed carry and enact sweeping safety measures. Relying on that legal reality, the young have reassured Americans fearful of confiscation that they do not seek the repeal of the Second Amendment.

Repealing the Second Amendment would eliminate that source of reassurance — without even achieving the Parkland, Fla., students’ aims. It would not take the most lethal, military-grade weapons out of dangerous hands. Indeed, it wouldn’t eliminate a single gun or enact a single gun regulation. It would instead make the passage of each proposed regulation more difficult. Worse, a repeal campaign would infuse the Second Amendment with an absolute anti-regulation meaning that only the gun lobby has given it.

Moreover, the Supreme Court has treated the Second Amendment as essentially codifying a preexisting “fundamental right of each person to possess the means of self-defense in the home.” The court has called this protection a cornerstone of “our system of ordered liberty” — one that preceded the Second Amendment and would remain even without it, embedded explicitly in the Fifth and 14th amendments’ protections of “liberty.”

There is undoubted emotional appeal in a call to arms organized around an aim as lofty as the elimination of the Second Amendment. Its very unattainability adds to its allure. I can’t deny feeling the pull of that appeal myself. But our shared goal is surely not just to make ourselves feel good about our audacious hopes, but also to protect our children from being ripped to shreds by bullets and terrorized by that prospect.

Given that goal, our solemn obligation is to focus on the real obstacle to progress in gun regulation. That obstacle is not the Second Amendment but the addiction of lawmakers to the money of firearms manufacturers and other unimaginably wealthy funders. That, coupled with the gun lobby’s ability to mobilize single-issue gun rights voters, is set against the backdrop of a gun culture and national history that valorizes guns. None of those realities would be eliminated by erasing the Second Amendment’s 27 words from the Constitution.

The rising generation’s mobilization of passionate voters ready to toss out lawmakers tethered to guns by a trail of dark money is the right antidote. “Vote them out” — a chant heard over and over in the recent marches — is a stirring call to action that conjures the same peace-loving image to change a country awash in guns as does the symbolic cry of “Repeal the Second Amendment.” And, despite its stirring appeal to some, the goal of erasing part of the Bill of Rights for the first time in 227 years is profoundly alarming to many and contributes to the divisions that have rendered our politics dysfunctional.

It is not reassuring to those alarmed by the prospect that successfully removing the Second Amendment is a goal beyond reach in light of the Constitution’s stringent procedures for altering the document. The very existence of the battle cry, weaponized by a figure as rightly respected as Stevens, will be trumpeted by the gun lobby as it fights the grass-roots movement that started so auspiciously in the wake of the unspeakable slaughter in Parkland.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... 5f8df14f7c

[Scooter]

Never imagine that you can get the better of a teenager on social media. They were born connected to it and will always be better at it than you.

[Econoline]

That's a good essay, Jim; here's another from The Atlantic).

I've got to think that calls for repeal of the 2nd Amendment (by Sue, Justice Stevens, Wonkette, Rolling Stone & others—notably *NOT* including the Marjory Stoneman Douglas HS survivors, as Prof. Tribe points out) are more about moving the Overton window than about any realistic attempt to actually amend the Constitution.

Two more groups which have NOT shown any interest in repealing the 2nd Amendment are the US House of Representatives and the US Senate: AFAIK there is *NO* member of Congress (where any Constitutional amendment would presumably have to start) who has advocated for repeal—not even Gabby Giffords.

[rubato]

Sounds reasonable to me.


yrs,
rubato

[Darren]

OF course it does Rubato. Try selling that wholesale to the red states when the trend is for less inspection of cars.