Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com > General Firearms Forums > Legal and Activism > Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2012, 04:42 PM   #1
bkt
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 6,973
Liked 1305 Times on 664 Posts
Likes Given: 151

Default Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
By John Aloysius Farrell
July 29, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. "Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.
__________________
bkt is offline  
 
Reply With Quote

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today - It's Free!

Are you a firearms enthusiast? Then we hope you will join the community. You will gain access to post, create threads, private message, upload images, join groups and more.

Firearms Talk is owned and operated by fellow firearms enthusiasts. We strive to offer a non-commercial community to learn and share information.

Join FirearmsTalk.com Today! - Click Here


Old 07-29-2012, 05:29 PM   #2
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
ellis36's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Batesville,Mississippi
Posts: 945
Liked 796 Times on 371 Posts
Likes Given: 456

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bkt View Post
When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."
I was watching the preview this morning. Chris, either out of ignorance or intent, apparently confuses 100-round magazines and rate of fire. He asked Scalia (paraphrasing) "Do we really need access to guns that will fire 100 rounds a minute?"
Isn't anyone listening?! Legally ownership of automatic weapons is already restricted. As far as I know, 'semi-automatic weapons don't do that.
(Watch for someone to tell me I'm wrong. "They can do that")
__________________
ellis36 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 05:30 PM   #3
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: SW OK
Posts: 4,590
Liked 2251 Times on 1225 Posts
Likes Given: 3513

Default

“They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace."

This is essentially what SCOTUS said in Heller. Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights. Heller is probably the best we will ever get. See III pages 54-55.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html


Quote:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of
Cite as: 554 U. S. ____ (2008) 55


Opinion of the Court
arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.”

See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v.

__________________
alsaqr is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 07:07 PM   #4
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,900
Liked 2058 Times on 827 Posts
Likes Given: 2706

Default

I believe scalia may be a sell out I don't trust him

__________________
opaww is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 07:43 PM   #5
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
dog2000tj's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 8,309
Liked 3737 Times on 1825 Posts
Likes Given: 13270

Default

that's fine ..... just as I believe there are limitations to be placed on Gov't

__________________

Member: NRA GOA

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
Est sularas oth mithas

"either way, you were guilty by association, so you were smited...." JD

dog2000tj is offline  
orangello Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 07:56 PM   #6
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
BigByrd47119's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Detroit, MI
Posts: 3,401
Liked 1102 Times on 677 Posts
Likes Given: 2389

Default

The problem with Scalia is that he is a modern day republican prone to all of their same pit falls (see Citizens United case).

__________________

“Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it’s realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy.”
---Ron Paul

"He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetuate it."
---Dr. Martin Luther King

"If you think we are free today, you know nothing about tyranny and even less about freedom."
---Tom Braun

BigByrd47119 is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 08:06 PM   #7
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9206 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

I'm going to start OC'ing a musket and single shot black powder pistol. Both in calibers greater than .50. Maybe along with traditional reenactment garb. And a freaking sword. Saber. Whatever. A USMC NCO saber. Hells yeah. And a freaking bayonet that puts my mosin bayonet to shame.

Were there any BP revolvers back then? My understanding was that cap and ball revolvers were invented around 100 years after independence... Correct?

__________________
trip286 is offline  
KalashnikovJosh Likes This 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 08:07 PM   #8
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: West, by God, Funroe,Louisiana
Posts: 18,707
Liked 9206 Times on 5058 Posts
Likes Given: 74

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dog2000tj
that's fine ..... Just as i believe there are limitations to be placed on gov't
qft +1000000
__________________
trip286 is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 08:29 PM   #9
FTF_SUPPORTER.png
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
locutus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 10,196
Liked 6546 Times on 3650 Posts
Likes Given: 6192

Default

Antonin Scalia is the most conservative, pro-second amendment justice to serve on the court in the last 100 years or so. He's probably the most brilliant legal scholar as well.

While many of us, myself included, may dislike his interpretation, there can be no doubt in my mind that he has more knowledge of the constitution than all of us put together.

I think that sometimes in reading the constitution, we need to read the opinions of folks like Scalia, Hugo Black, Benjamin Cordoza, Oliver Wendell Holmes etc, and try to get a feel for what the founding fathers really meant, and not what we wish they had meant.

I personally think the Second amendment is quite clear when it says "shall not be infringed," OTOH, I don't have an I.Q. of 180, and I haven't dedicated my entire life to the study of constitutional law.

Let's be a bit cautious about criticizing a good friend even if we have a disagreement with him.

Just something to think about.

__________________

War is the continuation of politics by other means.
Carl von Clausewitz
V
The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

locutus is offline  
 
Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2012, 12:14 AM   #10
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
 
KalashnikovJosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,156
Liked 320 Times on 191 Posts
Likes Given: 426

Default

Disagree with you there,locutus.

The Constitution wasn't written so that only people with enormous IQ's and lifelong employment as a lawyer can understand it.

I think elitist monkeying around with the simple,direct meaning of "shall not be infringed" in order to avoid the necessary repeal of all "gun control" in order to be in full compliance with the 2A is bull****.

And I think the only reason he did it was because he wanted to avoid the backlash of having to release and pardon tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of Americans wrongfully "convicted" of violating "gun control" "laws",along with the political backlash of denouncing a large part of an entire parties platform as truly illegitimate.

So he concocted a whole host of debatable reasons for not invalidating the entirety of "gun control" and restoring the 2A to its rightful authority as a restriction on the whole of government infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

And because of this,we now face justification of "gun control" not built on the shaky foundation of usurpations of power from the Commerce Clause,but from the second amendment itself supposedly allowing "reasonable regulations"- which in the past have been laws that disarm slaves and freed blacks,without any real federal laws being made -no longstanding federal precedent- until the 1930's.

Its an example of pure revisionist history and judicial activism in support of a concept that has its roots in the darkest history of this nation on the one hand and no "long stranding precedent" beyond the progressive socialist era on the other.

The only limitation to MY rights are the rights of others- not unjust and illegitimate "laws" made by the federal (or any state) government outside the boundaries of the highest law of the land.

Without question,the entire court -and not just one political wing- is enamored of itself and the power it can wield,as well as of its place within a powerful federal government that it refuses to limit lawfully.

They enjoy their power,and concoct outright Orwellian excuses for the support and growth of such power.

All that being said-

What I find really interesting is how a man so smart and well schooled in this issue as Scalia can fathom to justify the "reasonable regulations" of the first amendment that pretty much encompass your right to speak freely but don't allow you to violate other peoples rights by slander,libeling,or threating them,as being the same as 20,000 federal laws complete with a special federal police agency to enforce them which are used to "reasonably regulate" the Second Amendment object- arms.

How would America look if the first amendment were as regulated and policed as the Second Amendment is?

Common sense seems to elude highly intellectual big government elitists like Scalia.....

__________________
"You assist an evil system most effectively by obeying its orders and decrees. An evil system never deserves such allegiance. Allegiance to it means partaking of the evil. A good person will resist an evil system with his or her whole soul."
-Mahatma Gandhi

http://jpfo.org/
III%

Last edited by KalashnikovJosh; 07-30-2012 at 12:18 AM.
KalashnikovJosh is offline  
2
People Like This 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Firearms Forum Replies Last Post
All guns are loaded guns! downsouth Training & Safety 24 06-03-2012 02:55 AM
Kagan goes hunting wth Scalia Mongo Legal and Activism 3 05-10-2012 03:30 PM
THIS is the reason normal people are scared of guns and people with guns DodgerBlue Legal and Activism 51 03-28-2012 03:58 AM
40,000 lbs of guns melted down by LAPD - LAPD Implies Owning Guns Is Illegal crowbar Legal and Activism 17 02-25-2010 02:28 AM
Video: Guns, Guns, Guns sculker The Club House 15 02-22-2010 01:53 AM