Not many in favor of Second Amendment repeal

Retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times on Tuesday that demonstrators against gun violence “should demand a repeal of the Second Amendment.”

It’s not a particularly popular idea in eastern New Mexico.

Stevens wrote that the idea of a “a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ...” is “a relic of the 18th century.”

He also wrote that repealing the Second Amendment would do more to weaken the National Rifle Association’s “ability to stymie legislative debate and block constructive gun control legislation than any other option.”

For many local residents, however, “any other option” sounds more desirable.

Portales’ Shirlene Peters said she opposes any measure to infringe upon “our right to bear arms.”

“You take away our arms, you take away our protection. You give others power to take us over,” she said.

Rather, investment in mental health education and intervention is a path Peters believes will be more worthwhile in preventing gun violence.

“One counselor can’t take care of 50 kids, much less 200 kids and larger, so they need help in other areas,” she said.

Portales’ Anne Beck called Stevens’ proposal “very impractical.”

“I think we have to find a middle ground. Background checks,” she said.

State Rep. Randal Crowder, R-Clovis, took his criticism of Stevens’ proposal one step further, pronouncing that it is unconscionable.

“I think our forefathers that put the Second Amendment in place had very keen insight at the time of the wars and everything they’d just come out of,” he said. “I’m not for banning all firearms. I do think there are some areas we do need to, as a country, amend some of the enforcement.”

He described underutilized methods of reporting that could be increased in lieu of an outright repeal, including increased reporting into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

William Rabb, an Eastern New Mexico University student, said he grew up around guns, and supports the right to bear arms, but said some kind of control is needed.

“Taking away the right wouldn’t be exactly the right way to go about it, but some type of organized control over that would just be a simple way to go about that,” he said.

Ease of access may be the first step on to a slippery slope for some, according to Rabb.

“For some people just to have an abundance of guns sometimes — like the big rifles and stuff like that — I really don’t see the use in it. A lot of times, we’re starting to see that those are the people that their kids are going and getting those because ‘Dad won’t see one. He has 50,’” he said.