Skip to comments.Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
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 ...
I saw many interesting things during my 18 month tour there on “Goat Island”. SCI has a unique history prior to the Government taking it over.
Why we need to replace Scalia with a Thomas. That has to be the one uncompromising goal of every conservative.
“Menacing” weapons? “frightening” weapons? Where the hell did they find this pansy?
I don’t think Scalia has gone over the other side here. There obviously has to be some clarification of what a US citizen can and cannot own in the way of “arms”.
I don’t think anyone believes a citizen should be able to own a fully armed tank or fighter jet. What about 50 caliber machine guns and hand grenades, tank killer missiles? The legal battle will be fought where they’ve been for years already: automatic or semi-automatic, hand carried rifles, clip size, caliber, etc.
Is everyone that naive? No one makes it far up the legal ladder with a historically accurate attitude to original intent. ‘Conservative’ is so only in relation to the alternative. It’s not the absolute a lot of us want it to be.
Also, Scalia is Catholic, and like all Catholic politicians is subject to ‘Sudden Liberalism Syndrome’. (See Rick Santorum on George Zimmerman).
True, but he's not as clear a thinker as Thomas.
Orthodox Jews don't get a pass on beards in the military.
Slander isn't protected speech.
I can't carry a gun into a prison.
Those hoping for an unquestionable Constitutional black and white will never find it, because the Constitution is only as powerful as the majority's will to follow it. Every day that you wake up is a day that you will have to fight for your liberties.
See this post of mine from five years ago that shows the Federalist Papers debate on this topic.
I wonder how he would explain letters of marque.
Meanwhile, Smith-Wesson starts a third shift at all it’s small arms factories.
No, but states should have their own armed forces not under control of the President. The Governors should have their own state militias if their states want them.
Exactly my thought. It’s like every government official in Washington has drunk at least a mug full of Adolf’s brew, and some at least two gallons.
The comments about menacing handguns were particularly egregious. What do these pecker-heads plan on leaving us for protection, cap pistols?
Welcome to the federal politics shell game. Sucker.
Oooh! Ooooh Ooooh! But we have to vote gop because of scotus appointments the gop shills squeal. Like it matters worth a hill of beans.
First and foremost, I think there are plenty of examples of non-government military taking out Abrams tanks out there, without requiring TOW missiles and the like.
That said, I certainly agree where you're coming from. If a citizen can fear the arms of their government, then the 2nd has absolutely failed. There is no requirement in the constitution for a loud weapon, nor a limitation on the number of times it can fire with a single pull of the trigger (certainly weapons that existed at the time, even if liberals love to ignore that concept.)
To me, however, the bridge 'too far' is area of effect weapons. Such weapons, to me, belong only in a structured environment which has self regulation. An organized militia seems right and proper for having tanks and Apache helicopters, as the misuse of these weapons can be regulated and defeated by the militia itself.
I've seen at close hand disastrous and deadly accidents with pyrotechnics handled by highly trained and very well regulated technicians. It takes very little imagination to consider what would happen with self regulated handling of explosives, chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.
All Scalia said was yes, the are some limits to rights in the constitution, such as his dissent in the Stolen Valor Case.
However, these restrictions must meet a constitutional test.
That is all.
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.
Dude, we have people here that think “a lot of hits” on Google means “correct.”
I fear FR is losing the edge that great (GREAT) freepers like Buckhead honed...