Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by bkt, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. bkt

    bkt New Member

    6,964
    0
    0
    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.
     
  2. ellis36

    ellis36 Well-Known Member Supporter

    2,319
    112
    63
    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") :)
     

  3. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,127
    108
    63
    “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.
     
  4. opaww

    opaww New Member

    4,868
    0
    0
    I believe scalia may be a sell out I don't trust him
     
  5. dog2000tj

    dog2000tj New Member

    8,176
    2
    0
    that's fine ..... just as I believe there are limitations to be placed on Gov't :cool:
     
  6. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    The problem with Scalia is that he is a modern day republican prone to all of their same pit falls (see Citizens United case).
     
  7. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    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?
     
  8. trip286

    trip286 New Member

    18,658
    1
    0
    qft +1000000
     
  9. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    220
    63
    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.:)
     
  10. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    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.....
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  11. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    3,426
    0
    0
    Wish I had your free time...

    What he said!
     
  12. TimL2952

    TimL2952 New Member

    1,354
    0
    0
    "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

    where?
     
  13. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    Took 5 minutes lol.

    Then I went and sprayed the yard for weeds,before the wife beat me with the garden hose!:p
     
  14. PrimePorkchop

    PrimePorkchop New Member

    1,743
    0
    0
    I have to disagree with all of this face value evaluation of his words. I do not believe for one second that he's saying our firearms are at risk. It's just not in his nature...

    Scalia knows that yesterday's musket is todays M4. What he's talking about is brandishing. Using a weapon for the sole purpose of intimidation or to incite chaos...or a weapon that is designed with the specific intent of inciting chaos...but I also believe he knows that no weapon exists...but he's setting up the gauntlet that will keep them occupied...basically saying "If you want to ban that gun, prove something that cannot be proven"



    In other words You have freedom of speech, but you cannot scream "Fire" in a theater or "bomb" on a plane...but the freedom haters will have to prove that you screamed it in the first place...and since no evidence exists to prove you said a peep, then they lose.

    This is the same idea behind Scalias words...he's playing games with the gun-hating crowds, I guarantee it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  15. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    dont forget that those self same judges who say there is a limit on the right to bear arms also claimed black people were animals and property...

    just because a judge 100years ago got it wrong doesnt mean 100years of wrong means it is right.

    the constitution is plain to any who look at it. the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. there isnt any grey area
     
  16. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0

    Your confusing regulation with cause and effect natural law here.

    If I were to scream fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire,I'd be guilty of violating the rights of other people.

    But no one has (yet,at least) argued that in this nation we should hobble people's vocal cords or "use technology" to prevent them from doing things like yelling fire in a crowded theater.


    And as much as people want to desperately believe that Heller was totally pro-2A,don't hold your breath.

    While it might look like Scalia is talking about "brandishing" "scary weapons" as an explanation of what he means by "reasonable regulation" in this particular instance,what I'd like you to ask yourself is if he's really interested in getting the 2A back to the point of being acknowledged as an individual right thats only subject to limitations when you abuse that right by violating the rights of others,then why did he allow decades of "gun control" that encompasses far more then the simple "fire in a crowded theater" example of reasonable law to stay in place?

    He had the chance to totally undo decades of illegitimate and unlawful federal "gun control" in Heller.He failed.

    My only conclusion is that Scalia considers "gun control" to be "reasonable".

    And don't think for a second that the gun grabbers haven't come to the same conclusion.

    In fact,as I've written elsewhere,instead of having to concoct some half-baked bull**** about how the commerce clause allows them to violate the 2A,now the hoplophobes can just say that Heller,as per Scalias majority opinion,says that the Second Amendment itself gives them the power to "reasonably regulate" arms.

    You think Scalia is playing the gun grabbers.

    I think the big government types are playing us all.

    And again,I ask what this nation would look like if we had 20,000 laws on the books as well as a special federal police agency to "reasonably regulate" the First Amendment?

    Would the Supreme Court allow that as a condition to the excersize of free speech,and would free speech still even exist as a truly inalienable right under such circumstances?

    How is something a right when you have to have government permission to do it?

    Thats called a government administered privilege,which has been the status quo of the Second Amendment since 1968 in this nation,and still is despite Heller.
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  17. JonM

    JonM Moderator

    20,110
    11
    38
    one other thing. any supreme court judge that decides a case taking precedent into consideration should be immediately removed with rapid haste from the bench. the only text a supreme court judge should have access to in making a decision is the united states constitution. no other court decisions no founding father notes no previous cases. just the constitution.

    its not rocket science
     
  18. PrimePorkchop

    PrimePorkchop New Member

    1,743
    0
    0
    Well, this is a very interesting concept that I had not thought of before...don't get me wrong, I don't feel like gun control works at all...in case thats what you thought? :confused:

    I still don't feel that Scalia is mirroring these liberal talking points on gun control (did you see that hideous **** with Michael Moore the other day? Talking about muskets...what drivel) ... what I took from his comments is that he's saying "you'll have to prove something to me that cannot be proven"

    But my "Fire shout" in the theater was not meant to directly relate to the concept of gun control...I know what you're saying, but it's really not how i'm trying to word it.

    hard to get words out sometimes, basically what I mean is he's saying "Well, maybe there are some weapons that fall into that classification, but you guys haven't shown those to me yet"

    I don't know, maybe im wrong... I was certainly wrong about SCOTUS' decision on Obamacare...
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  19. KalashnikovJosh

    KalashnikovJosh New Member

    1,156
    0
    0
    No,I didn't think you were pro gun control at all.

    We live in Orwellian times my friend- the government is very busy destroying liberty on all fronts,and is also busy keeping us thinking the state of tyranny were growing accustomed to is "freedom".

    The only reason why "gun control" appeals to the government is because it gives them control.

    If "gun control" meant levying regulations that restricted government use of force,you'd see them jumping off that shyit so fast it'd look like rats escaping a sinking ship......

    And Fat Bastard Mikey Moore has lard for brains and should go live in New York where Bloomieballs can make him healthy by using government to regulate what he can eat.

    Funny,how the nanny staters love laws that restrict the phuck out of everyone but THEM..........
     
  20. locutus

    locutus Well-Known Member Supporter

    16,381
    220
    63
    I would invite anyone who thinks Justice Scalia is one of the Washington elite to google SCOTUS decisions and read 10-15 of his opinions. (Hint: Keep a copy of Black's law dictionary beside you. This guy is a legal Einstein)

    Honestly, I wish we had 8 more like him on the court.

    And Jon, stare decisis, or precedent has been a part of out legal system since English common law, 300 years before our constitution was even written.

    Without it, allowing every court to re-interpret the constitution without regard to precedent would destroy the entire constitution as we know it.

    You can't build anything without a foundation under it.