Skip to comments.Scalia stuns Identity Conservatives: says guns can be regulated
Posted on 07/29/2012 5:03:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a shocking statement made this morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to regulate firearms. In a response to a question about the Second Amendment from Wallace, Scalia said the following:
... there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned some weapons. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried. --They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.
This statement will be perceived as a bolt of lightning in conservative circles and it will be received as a breath of fresh air to those that seek common sense gun standards. If one of the most conservative people in the land, Antonin Scalia, believes the 2nd Amendment allows for gun limitations, it will be difficult for gun fundamentalists to continue to make their case that gun ownership is absolute and not subject to any control by government authorities.
This has been a high visibility issue in New Hampshire because this state has very liberal open carry provisions. During the recent term, several legislators routinely carried their firearms openly in the State House. Additionally, those open carry provisions have come under scrutiny because members of various liberty groups have been quite vocal about their open carry gun rights at any venue, much to the chagrin of gun control advocates who want some open carry and concealed carry restrictions. A group of collaborators were recently kicked out of an Occupy Wall Street assembly in New Hampshire in part because they were carrying guns openly.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
as can speech, thought, religion and everything else.
Remember the 2nd amendment is as strong as any other.
as can be politicians.
Between Obama, Romney, Roberts and now Scalia, I think we can kiss liberty goodbye.
I saw the interview this morning. Scalia was talking about crew served weapons, cannons, not individual weapons, although he said that shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles, could probably be regulated. He did not include pistols and rifles.
“a breath of fresh air to those that seek common sense gun standards”
Common sense gun standards were defined long ago with the phrase “Guns don’t kill, people do.”
He also said that manpads might be subject to fed reg, and that heavy weapons, artillery are under fed purview. Anyone that looks at his statements and gets their knikers in a twist is a dullard.
There is gun control and then there is gun control.
Does anyone here disagree with laws that make it illegal for convicted felons to purchase guns?
That is a form of gun control.
What about felons on parole? Should they able to legally purchase guns?
The Supreme Court is now looking quite shaky.
It's amazing that FDR and Obama were both able to do this. No other presidents in history come to my mind in their astonishing ability to bend the Supreme Court to their will.
I do, and I know others do. If you can't be trusted with a firearm, you need to be in jail.
If you are out of jail, you have a right to protect yourself.
Just ask the Ruby Ridge, Waco, and MOVE folks about the government's tools of mass destruction?
In practice it (the 2nd) is not. For most of America, our RKBA is not a right, but a privilege doled out at the pleasure of the ruling class (gov't).
Over time, the courts have a greater history of approving 2A infringements than ruling constitutional protections for the 2A.
John Taney Roberts must have lowered the price it takes to buy a Supreme Court Justice.
The Kenyan is blackmailing the SOTUS.
Scalia says “Guns can be regulated away from prisoners on Death Row” and idiots instead hear “Guns can be banned from law-abiding citizens.”
Oy vey. This is one dumb society.
I hate to say it but I think you're right.
What about felons on parole? Should they able to legally purchase guns?
The very idea of putting an individual on the streets while depriving him, under color of law, an otherwise lawful means of self defense, should be considered an act of barbaric cruelty on a par with dropping a child into an active dog-fighting ring.
If the individual is too dangerous to be allowed a gun, he's too dangerous to be allowed on the street.
Never mind the fact that the concept of "felony" has been expanded so far that my father, were he alive today, would be a serial habitual felon by the way he disposed of used oil after driveway oil changes from +/-1950 to +/-1972.
says guns can be regulated
as can be politicians.
Ask the Bourbon King of France. Oh wait, you can’t.
“It’s amazing that FDR and Obama were both able to do this. No other presidents in history come to my mind in their astonishing ability to bend the Supreme Court to their will.”
And the Secret Service!
Ted Kennedy kills his pregnant girlfriend in a drunk driving accident and they name buildings after him. What's Gary Condit doing these days? Any more classified documents stuffed down Sandy Berger's sox lately?
Feh! I'd trust a gun toting drug dealer to be of higher ethical standards than felony free idots in Washington. It's a matter of a recontextualized system.
“Between Obama, Romney, Roberts and now Scalia, I think we can kiss liberty goodbye.”
Respectfully, no. We can kiss domestic tranquility goodbye. As for liberty, it will depend on who is left standing after the coming ‘unpleasantness’ is worked out.
Last I heard, he isn't back from getting a shave. ;)
In a twist? But I so wanted that 120mm smooth bore!
Flash message: Guns are already regulated.
I think civilian vessels on the high seas should be armed to protect themselves from pirates and other threats
One is a member of organized crime, the other is a politician.
Wait.... how do I tell the difference?
if they have already served their punishment, shouldn’t they get their rights back?
maybe they should spend more time behind bars if they are still a threat?
It’s looking very much, on quite a few issues, that the left is doing quite a bit of “concern trolling” to suppress potential voters for the right, since they’re not going to get them this time.
I do not believe in prison to punish, nor to rehabilitate. Prison, removing those convicted of crimes from society, should be done to protect the law abiding. Convicts should be released only when it is apparent they will never reoffend. If we cannot trust them with firearms, we cannot trust them with knives, bats, cars, fists, etc. Obviously, I believe many more criminals should remain in prison forever than currently do. I believe any violent crime committed against an innocent should bring an automatic life sentence with no parole, for the first offense.
Don't create confusion and uncertainty about the natural rights of free people by accepting the social engineering of utopian socialists.
I heard it. Nothing out of the ordinary for an originalist such as Scalia. He is historically accurate and was talking in a broad way about what the words of the second amendment mean. There is nothing in the second amendment ( or the first for that matter) that is absolutist. This is much ado about nothing. Moreover, it is typical of the left to try and put a wedge between conservatives. No need to feed the hype
As I have been saying all along, this is not a “conservative friendly” Court. I said they’d uphold ObamaCare and they did. This is VERY much a Court that believes in ultimate government power and not power by the people.
But, hey . . . some called me a liberal for saying that. just the sad truth my friends.
Flash message: all things are regulated in a totalitarian state, which the United States now indisputably are.
Further flash message: There is a distinction between what is regulated and what is actually controlled. See, e.g. the utter collapse of Soviet authority circa 1991.
“Moreover, it is typical of the left to try and put a wedge between conservatives. No need to feed the hype”
The interview I saw was on Fox/Chirs Wallace and I thought there was nothing to it. Down the line conservative. If there was anything “liberal” about the interview, it was Wallace who refused to discuss Scalia’s new book, although that was why he had granted an interview.
Michael Corleone: "My father is no different than any other powerful man -- any man who's responsible for other people, like a senator or president."
Kay, his fiance: "You know how naive you sound...senators and presidents don't have men killed."
MC: "Oh, who's being naive, Kay?"
All I can say is that WE THE PEOPLE need to take our country back!!!!!!!
Like obama says when he doesn't like something that is said he said...lol at myself as I type...
this whole damn bunch makes me laugh..glad I'm old and the years ahead are not as many as have passed~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Keep on upgrading Congress at every election turning over Rinos and Dems to keep them in check. I think there’s a good chance we get 12 to 20 extra seats in the House and a fairly good shot at getting 60 seats in the Senate.
Indeed Scalia is right, none of the first 10 amendments so the Federal Constitution were ever intended to restrict our States.
We have State Constitution’s for that propose, and most free State Constitutions garrentee the right to keep and bare arms.
WE HAVE NO NEED FOR WASHINGTON TO TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH OUR OWN STATE!
is liberal speak for complete prohibition of gun ownership by anyone other than government operatives.
I don't know. I haven't yet watched the video.
LOL @ your comments. Thank you!!! I'm in your same boat.
Increase in gun/ammo purchases in 5..4...3...
Exactly! I would love for him to defend a state's right to establish an official religion - much as Maryland was once officially Catholic. I mean, either you believe in state's rights or your a selective and hypocritical douchebag - and I assume he's not one of those.
I think you are avoiding the bigger picture here. Scalia just handed the libs a club, and they are going to use to great effect for the next 20 plus years. Scalia must be about to retire, so he’s worried about all of the nasty books that are going to be written about him. Even if he believes what he is saying, why say it? Unless you have jumped ship and now believe all of the liberal hype that something MUST be done?