Good morning. This is L.A. Times Opinion digital editor Matthew Fleischer, filling in for Paul Thornton.
Last weekend, students across the nation took to the streets following the deadly Parkland school shooting to demand gun control. Their efforts were powerful and inspirational. For a moment, change felt as inevitable as after the Sandy Hook massacre.
The vast majority of Americans want immediate gun restrictions[1]. But how do we get it done? For decades — despite one massacre after another — even the mildest of gun reforms has been swatted aside with ease by the hands of the powerful gun lobby.
Is the problem one of incrementalism? Are universal background checks and assault rifle bans too unambitious in their sweep? Perhaps it’s time to fully eliminate the 2nd Amendment — a position gaining traction in left-wing circles, and one that even former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens lobbied for this week[2].
Going after the 2nd Amendment isn’t only unnecessary[3], counters op-ed contributor and NYU law professor Michael Waldmanit, it would turn the political hill we have to climb on gun control into Everest.
Dozens of lower federal courts have carefully considered[4] gun laws. Sometimes they limit government action. But overwhelmingly they have upheld safety regulations, even bans on semiautomatic assault weapons enacted by New York and Connecticut after the Newtown, Conn., massacre of schoolchildren. The Supreme Court justices have declined to take another 2nd Amendment case, thus allowing this consensus to take root.
If the Constitution makes it unnecessary to erase the amendment, politics makes it unwise, even self-defeating. There's a reason the NRA calls itself the country's "oldest civil rights organization."
