Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
National Journal ^ | July 29, 2012 | John Aloysius Farrell

Posted on 07/29/2012 8:04:50 AM PDT by Greystoke

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."

(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; guns; scalia; scotus; supreme
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last
Great, just great.
1 posted on 07/29/2012 8:04:57 AM PDT by Greystoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

banglist


2 posted on 07/29/2012 8:05:45 AM PDT by Greystoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bang_list

banglist


3 posted on 07/29/2012 8:05:51 AM PDT by Greystoke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

I think this is being taken out of context, as usual.


4 posted on 07/29/2012 8:09:09 AM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

WTF? Is he channelling John Roberts now? Why the hell is it that only conservatives regress? Shall not be infringed should be pretty easy for a strict constructionist/originalist


5 posted on 07/29/2012 8:12:36 AM PDT by 1malumprohibitum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Watching the interview now and it was taken out of context.


6 posted on 07/29/2012 8:13:14 AM PDT by CityCenter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
frightening weapons? and just exactly WHAT the hell does that mean???

RATS wet their pants at the sight of ANY weapon...

7 posted on 07/29/2012 8:13:18 AM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Tony, we gotta disagree on this one.


8 posted on 07/29/2012 8:15:05 AM PDT by Emperor Palpatine (Tosca, mi fai dimenticare Iddio!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
The example that Scalia cited was a hand canon. I think that a law forbidding the ownership of a M72 Laws rocket would probably meet the constitutionality test. People need to understand the context.
9 posted on 07/29/2012 8:15:24 AM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

They own all of the government now... scalia is gone. Only Thomas remains unblemished... and that is speaking of the entire damned government.

LLS


10 posted on 07/29/2012 8:16:14 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

This is what frustrates me the most about some people on FR. We claim that the media is lame, yet pants are wet by out of context statements intentially published to elicit a response.


11 posted on 07/29/2012 8:18:01 AM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The founders wouldn't agree with you.

/johnny

12 posted on 07/29/2012 8:18:54 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

Like LBJ said, if we lose Cronkite read Scalia, we lose everything.


13 posted on 07/29/2012 8:19:11 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

...well, since we’re going to sit on asses and let them....


14 posted on 07/29/2012 8:19:34 AM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
What the press and scalia were referring to as “Assault Weapons” are semi auto weapons that are legal and had better remain so. I am sick of our government and disappointed in those that are so quick to make excuses for them.

LLS

15 posted on 07/29/2012 8:20:06 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Please fill in the context.


16 posted on 07/29/2012 8:22:25 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: 3Fingas

They have taken over and own everyone in positions of power and influence. We “may” have lost the Republic... there is no will to stand and fight... unless you are a Conservative... then everyone wants to fight against you/us. We even have our own defending these bastards.

LLS


17 posted on 07/29/2012 8:23:24 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Guns are regulated. I don’t see how you can draw any other conclusion. The real question is what the limit to that regulation is.

The lefties are going to say that the only thing you have a right to is a musket, and that they can even prevent you from taking that in prohibited areas, as well as track them.

The right to bear arms is not going to be defined by the Constitution. It will need to be upheld in the legislature.


18 posted on 07/29/2012 8:23:50 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Sorry Scalia, the wording of the 2nd is clear. It means even YOU as a FEDERAL employee have no authority to regulate our God Given right to keep and bear arms.


19 posted on 07/29/2012 8:24:42 AM PDT by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

He’s correct that any potential ruling will depend upon the case presented. Free speech can be curtailed as in the tired “yelling fire in a crowded theater” example so it depends upon the case.


20 posted on 07/29/2012 8:25:57 AM PDT by muir_redwoods (Legalize Freedom!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

agreed - just how were privateers, of which there were many, getting outfitted?

“The Lucy” is a great example of a privateer/ship that I have Googled in the past. She was armed like the warship she was.


21 posted on 07/29/2012 8:26:48 AM PDT by Triple (Socialism denies people the right to the fruits of their labor, and is as abhorrent as slavery)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
Frightening ? What does that mean? How about frightening speech, any talk about limiting the first amendment ? What nonsense. Scalia just opened a can that worms will be crawling out of. Some days I regret opening my laptop
22 posted on 07/29/2012 8:27:26 AM PDT by reefdiver (Shoeless John Roberts, An American Tragedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
That goes back to the old common law where Open Carry was allowed and encouraged, but concealed carry was frowned upon in the old days. Criminals hide their guns. Law abiding show their guns. That's why a lot of placed allowed open carry historically and still do to this day.
23 posted on 07/29/2012 8:28:43 AM PDT by Darren McCarty (Holding my nose one more time to get rid of Eric Holder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

I am not making excuses for anybody this is what he said:

from the Hill

The conservative justice described, as he has many times before, his “textual” approach to interpreting the Constitution, which requires that its provisions be read according to their meaning at the time of its drafting. New gun restrictions, he said, would be weighed “very carefully.”

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.”


24 posted on 07/29/2012 8:29:23 AM PDT by Perdogg (Let's leave reading things in the Constitution that aren't there to liberals and Dems)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
I think that what this boils down to is that the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” have not been adequately examined in terms of their scope, extent and constraints. What is the scope and extent of this right? What are the constraints?

Some people on this forum have said that the right is unlimited, up to and including keeping man-pack nuclear weapons. On the other hand, some of those plus still others have said that the right to keep and bear arms is limited by the property rights of others. But these positions are mostly opinion. Actual discussion with substantiation for the reasoning has been scant.

I will point out that “the right of the people to vote” (same phrasing as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is not unlimited.

The Second Amendment community needs to discuss this issue (because the other side will) and they have not been doing so as far as I can tell. If we don't get our stuff together, the other side will prevail.

25 posted on 07/29/2012 8:34:14 AM PDT by KrisKrinkle (Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of their ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darren McCarty

Liberals claim that Open Carry will take us back to the days of the Old West.

The funny part is that most towns in the Old West had strict gun control within city limits. Many of the famous gunfights, including the OK Corral, were precipitated by law enforcement attempting to disarm citizens in compliance with the local laws.


26 posted on 07/29/2012 8:34:42 AM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Get your hi cap mags while you can.


27 posted on 07/29/2012 8:36:26 AM PDT by mylife (The Roar Of The Masses Could Be Farts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

This LAWs rocket may need to be regulated. The rest maybe not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qblo8Bl8o1c


28 posted on 07/29/2012 8:37:07 AM PDT by wally_bert (It's sheer elegance in its simplicity! - The Middleman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Justices talk in hypotheticals because they can’t state their specific opinions on untested issues till it’s before the court.

Scalia would not vote to ban most if not any types of small arms because of the obvious way in which he interprets the 2nd amendment. If a ban or restriction places a defacto infringement on a right, he’ll strike it down.

Look at Heller. He cites specifically the defensive need of a pistol and how it must be at the ready to properly defend.


29 posted on 07/29/2012 8:38:57 AM PDT by Bogey78O (Don't call them jihadis. Call them irhabis. Tick them off, don't entertain their delusion.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
As a practical matter the Founders lived in a time when the private individuals owned the big guns as well ~ Tony's memory doesn't quite go back that far, but even in Italy his (surviving ancestors) were probably mercenaries with vast arrays of privately owned cannon of all sorts.

People who didn't have such weapons didn't survive to have modern descendants.

30 posted on 07/29/2012 8:39:56 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

All I can say is, MOLON LABE


31 posted on 07/29/2012 8:39:56 AM PDT by TonyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

I’m in the fight brother/sister.

So are my kids. We are not giving up without a fight.
We vote and participate in elections in hope that the Republic can be saved and our freedoms will be preserved/restored. Like your screen name, we have to confront the falsehoods, inaccuracies, and misinformation of the brain-washed liberals, the huckster lawyers, the greedy politicians, decadent media personalities, and the self-absorbed and distracted neighbors we encounter or hear about on a daily basis.

Don’t give up. There are millions more like us. America can rediscover her liberty again. Things often look the bleakest before the sun rises.


32 posted on 07/29/2012 8:42:50 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Folks, read/watch these accounts for yourself, from multiple sources.

Mute/avoid any follow-up commentary by the LSM “journalists”...


33 posted on 07/29/2012 8:46:10 AM PDT by mikrofon (CONtext: Words designed to twist the meaning and elicit a desired response.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
“But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize.”

I'll watch the interview later today to get the context correct. The words, “frightening weapons” could mean anything. My handgun would be a “frightening weapon” to the person at whom I was aiming.

34 posted on 07/29/2012 8:48:38 AM PDT by Marcella (The power to tax is the power to destroy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

1. As already noted, taken out of context by the trouble-making presstitutes.

2. “It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said. What else would he say? A proper judge doesn’t decide any case before it has been heard, even if the conclusion is pretty much foregone.


35 posted on 07/29/2012 8:49:28 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I think this is being taken out of context, as usual.

"He looks.....black".

36 posted on 07/29/2012 8:50:10 AM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Thank you.

These comments were part of a larger conversation on how the constitution should be interpretted. Before people react to a headline and throw Scalia under the bus, they ought to actually watch the interview which was highly informative and entertaining. Scalia’s a good guy and a great conservative. There is no reason to think he has abandoned the cause and turned his back on he deeply held beliefs.


37 posted on 07/29/2012 8:50:40 AM PDT by CityCenter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Marcella

Scalia was speaking of the old common law tort, afrightening


38 posted on 07/29/2012 8:54:01 AM PDT by Ted Grant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Hey Scalia..the 2nd applies to YOU and ONLY You and the federal government.

As does the entire Bill of Rights.

You who championed the Chicago case still think the federal government will save you? You get what you asked for..the feds now have their fingers so far into local issues you will never be able to get them out...unless..


39 posted on 07/29/2012 8:55:55 AM PDT by crz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Personally, I believe in citizen ownership of any weapon the military uses. A M72 isn’t going to take out an Abrams, and if the government decides to use tanks on citizens, I want to be able to take out an Abrams.

We need constitutional carry in every state ... open and concealed.

Fully automatic weapons should not require a license.

Silencers/surpressors should not require registration and a $200 tax.

Short barrel rifles should not require a license.


40 posted on 07/29/2012 8:56:02 AM PDT by ConservativeInPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

It was a very entertaining interview.


41 posted on 07/29/2012 8:56:49 AM PDT by linn37 (Newt supporter here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

What frightening weapons banned by our founders is he referring to?


42 posted on 07/29/2012 8:56:58 AM PDT by New Jersey Realist (America: home of the free because of the brave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

THese rinos only see one side, the numerator. The militia clause means we should be able to organize ourselves as the state grows in its one sided observation of our lives, while we have no say and no representation.

Scalia is way off the line there.

It’s like the Rinos are gay guys who do not know it yet, except we have a GOP-E and liberal fascist system which does not know it is about to enjoy rapine gthe country. Karl Jung talked about people of power who wanted to realize rape psychosis, thinking they were good and normal people, when in fact they were corrupt and on the verge of going Jack the Ripper.

The movie theater attack is exactly that in COlorado, and they are reacting in “feel for” the perp and against gun and free speech theater goers.


43 posted on 07/29/2012 8:57:20 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

I think we are all just a bit wobbly and off-balance from the recent Roberts defection. The last thing most of us want to hear is the Scalia is now turning like some pod person — transforming into a new life form a la Roberts.

That’s why I initially posted that I hope that he was misquoted...


44 posted on 07/29/2012 8:58:21 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
So, you're in on it, too, Mr. Scalia...


45 posted on 07/29/2012 8:58:54 AM PDT by Lady Jag (If you can't make them see the light, let them feel the heat. - Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CityCenter

I think we are all just a bit wobbly and off-balance from the recent Roberts defection. The last thing most of us want to hear is the Scalia is now turning like some pod person — transforming into a new life form a la Roberts.

That’s why I initially posted that I hope that he was misquoted...


46 posted on 07/29/2012 8:58:54 AM PDT by 3Fingas (Sons and Daughters of Freedom, Committee of Correspondence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I think the context is the Rino Romney campaign getting into flip flop gear and giving heads up to scalia


47 posted on 07/29/2012 8:59:20 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Romeny getting ready to betray us via scalia.... psychosis perv of LDS kicking in sodom gear?


48 posted on 07/29/2012 9:00:33 AM PDT by JudgemAll (Democrats Fed. job-security Whorocracy & hate:hypocrites must be gay like us or be tested/crucified)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Brilliant
That’s the same logic that resulted in “safe, legal abortions”, with all due respect. What”s not to understand about a bill of rights?
49 posted on 07/29/2012 9:01:00 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
I hope he (Scalia) was talking about nukes and cruise missiles. It was very clear to any freedom loving Constitutionalist that the founders were talking about the "right to bear arms" in empowering the people with the ability to over-throw a tyranical government, like a move toward totalitarian dictatorship, all options should be on the table. And, like Roberts decision on Obamacare, SCOTUS erroneous decisions doesn't make it constitutional.
50 posted on 07/29/2012 9:02:07 AM PDT by broken_arrow1 (I regret that I have but one life to give for my country - Nathan Hale "Patriot")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson