In the aftermath of hundreds of thousands of marchers throughout the nation demanding new gun control measures after the horrifying February event in Parkland, Fla., what can we expect from Congress and state legislatures?
Congress will certainly do virtually nothing between now and the November elections. In light of the rapid passage of last December’s $1.5 trillion tax overhaul by a bare majority, the House and Senate will do very little, if anything, in the remaining months of the year.
Former Justice John Paul Stevens, who turns 98 on April 20, was so upset by the Parkland shootings that he wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Repeal is impossible: It takes two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-quarters of the states to ratify or rescind an amendment.
In calling for repeal, Justice Stevens clearly went way beyond a suggestion he made in his 2014 book, “Six Amendments,” when he suggested adding a few words along the following lines: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.” But that too would take a constitutional amendment. Not likely either.
That leaves the states. Massachusetts has long had strong gun control laws. On April 6, a federal judge in Boston dismissed a lawsuit brought against the commonwealth by the Gun Owners’ Action League and other groups, which challenged the ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines.
U.S. District Court Judge William Young, a nominee of President Ronald Reagan, ruled that
