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

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-163 next last
To: kingu
does not mean making one runs more than $20.

You've never made a cannon, have you?

Cannons, BTW, are legal to build and own under federal law.

/johnny

101 posted on 07/29/2012 11:23:31 AM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
The arms were regulated to the extent that they were maintained in good working order. One could argue that that was in fact a regulation on the militia that they keep their arms in working condition, and periodically demonstrate that they know how to use them.

-PJ

102 posted on 07/29/2012 11:31:13 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

That kind of mindset behind policy/judicial decisions is coming from a big city ethnic/cultural/religious perspective that has made incursions into all three branches of government. If you want to protect your Second Amendment rights, you’ll need to do so through the legislature. And elect more of a solid American demographic into the legislature—not those who comprise only about 25% percent of our population and come in such recent generations from southern Europe to reside in our large cities. Or push in advance for another reformation.


103 posted on 07/29/2012 11:48:54 AM PDT by familyop ("Wanna cigarette? You're never too young to start." --Deacon, "Waterworld")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu

Regulate chemistry....


104 posted on 07/29/2012 11:59:06 AM PDT by Squantos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

This is surprising to anyone?


105 posted on 07/29/2012 12:09:48 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper; central_va

There is no indication in the article that Scalia is addressing anything other than what type arms an individual citizen can own and possess.

What a “well regulated militia” might or might not be able to do is a different question. I don’t think the founders addressed whether an individual could have owned a cannon or a battleship, which did exist during those days.

And the present day gun control issue is primarily one of what an individual can own.


106 posted on 07/29/2012 12:12:13 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Will88
The Supreme Court addressed that in Miller. IE, the weapon has to be useful for a militia. That they didn't take notice of sawed-off shotguns used in WWI, I blame on Miller's lawyer.

/johnny

107 posted on 07/29/2012 12:19:10 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
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.

I'll see your "constitutional originalist" and raise you a "Declarationist", Scalia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declarationism

You see, "Declarationists" are a big problem for so-called "Constitutionalists" who go off the rails and start tampering with Natural Rights, because Declarationists have trump.

One should point out to Scalia that the Founding Fathers actually played that trump card, the card that beats tyrannical, despotic (fascist) governments.

108 posted on 07/29/2012 12:25:27 PM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

Agreed. This is a far cry from what today’s anti-gun jackasses are spewing though... Regardless of political Party apparently.


109 posted on 07/29/2012 12:26:27 PM PDT by Dead Corpse (I will not comply.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
I don't see anything threatening about this. Why would it be a problem for a state to ban the sale of rocket propelled grenade launchers, or fully automatic weapons? We, the voters, can work to keep the availability of weapons for hunting, sport, and most importantly, self-defense, as we have in most of the country.

Even in those bastions of liberals like Chicago and D.C., we're seeing changes in the anti-gun attitudes of old. Regular folks are becoming disgusted at not being able to defend themselves from the thugs who don't care about laws.

110 posted on 07/29/2012 12:34:34 PM PDT by SuziQ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
Let's break it down, using my old dictionary which had King George III son listed as Regent in England.

Regulated=controlled. (think of what a regulator does with gas flow, for instance)

Militia=The Army, in its entirety.

A well regulated (controlled) militia (Army) being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Part of the debate over the Constitution was one of whether or not there would be a standing Federal Army. Even the State Militias (armies) were largely not standing (professional) armies. Concerns included whether the Federal Army would be large enough if the State Militias found themselves in conflict in an issue between adjacent (and, at that time, soverign) states, and whether the Federal Army would become an instrument of the abuse of power domestically.

So, not only the question of should there be a standing Federal Army, but how large (if there should be one) should that army be were discussed in the Federalist papers.

The conclusion was this:

That the Federal Standing Army would be relatively small compared to the population, enough so that the State Militias would be able to contain its ambitious use, and the ultimate defense of liberty would be the vast majority of the population armed.

The control of that Army is something the security of a free state depends upon, not just for the defense of the borders and to settle disputes between the States, but to prevent it from being used internally as an instrument to deprive the citizens of liberty. To stay free, the Army had to be contained. In order to ensure the balance of power never shifted away from the People, the People had to be armed.

While the 'state of the art' then may have been the flintlock musket, now it is the select fire weapons of the modern battlefield, along with their companion destructive devices. These are already regulated (infringed) by the NFA. Any further infringement should be thus resisted, in fact, some of those infringements should be rolled back.

The balance of power between the Government and the People has been altered by numerous materiel force multipliers we laud in our mutual defense but will curse if ever used against us by our own military on our own soil. Even the preponderance of numbers our founders counted upon to prevail can be called into question under those circumstances because the addition of air power, satellite and other surveillance, etc., has shifted the balance of power (ultimately, the raw ability to enforce the Constitution) away from the People.

111 posted on 07/29/2012 12:35:43 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeInPA

Correct. The NFA of ‘34 and ensuing legislation should be thrown out.


112 posted on 07/29/2012 12:42:03 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil
There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

Back in those days, states considered themselves exempt from the Federal constitution. Some even had state religions. Using 'local limitations' is an invalid argument. The question is - did the early federal government outlaw certain firearms?

113 posted on 07/29/2012 12:45:41 PM PDT by aimhigh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Arms are swords, spears, pikes, billhooks (dual use in a orchard), firearms of any kind (including automatic), cannons, etc...

2nd Amendment says that the right of the people to keep and bear ams shall not be infringed.

You may be ok with having your rights infringed, but I'm not. Full auto weapons and short shotguns are particularly useful arms for a militia, they shouldn't require a license.

/johnny

114 posted on 07/29/2012 12:47:51 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
The NFA of ‘34 and ensuing legislation should be thrown out.

Amen!

/johnny

115 posted on 07/29/2012 12:49:04 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
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.

Absolutely incorrect.

The Second Amendment explicitly states 'arms', as opposed to firearms. A Laws rocket would fall under the 'arms' category, which is protected by the Second Amendment.

116 posted on 07/29/2012 12:51:20 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: kingu

“I appreciate your thinking on such a thing, but the reality is that a deadly chemical and explosive weapons can be made from common goods. Making delivery systems for them as well is easy and inexpensive. Just because a cannon costs tens of thousands in a store does not mean making one runs more than $20. Or a rocket launcher that runs tens of millions can’t be reproduced using adopted materials for hundreds.

And would you really care for Apple Militia? Google Forces? NBC Rangers? Or the Rainbow Fudge Packer Squadron launching an attack on Chick-Fil-A?”

If it is as easy as you say, then regulation is pointless- it can’t succeed because it is impossible to enforce. And as for the Rainbow Fudge Packer Squadron, it would be defeated by the Chick-Fil-A Defense Force, or perhaps the National Anti-sodomite Air Corps, Provisional.


117 posted on 07/29/2012 12:52:30 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

There are assault weapons all around the home. Baseball bats, guitars, hockey sticks, golf clubs, kitchen knives, laptops, belts, the list goes on for a long time.


118 posted on 07/29/2012 12:53:18 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Baseball bats, guitars, hockey sticks, golf clubs, kitchen knives, laptops, belts, the list goes on for a long time.

What about pointed sticks?

119 posted on 07/29/2012 12:54:26 PM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ

” Why would it be a problem for a state to ban the sale of rocket propelled grenade launchers, or fully automatic weapons?”

It is a problem because those same states would be the ones crying for gun control now- they implement it, they fail, they blame the rest of the country for “lax gun laws”, and then attempt to destroy liberty for the rest of us by manipulating the Federal government.


120 posted on 07/29/2012 12:57:17 PM PDT by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

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

With that statement, Scalia is as much a constitutional scholar as Obama is.

121 posted on 07/29/2012 12:59:35 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Gov. Henry said it well when he noted that “he smelt a rat tending to monarchy.”


122 posted on 07/29/2012 1:00:25 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Vote for willard. Because "our" pro-abort, anti-gun socialist is SO much better than theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

.” said the judge, who is protected by armed bodyguardS (plural) and has the best security money can buy at the expense of the public.


123 posted on 07/29/2012 1:04:21 PM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Will88
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.

You've already limited your argument to the very-limiting term "firearms."

124 posted on 07/29/2012 1:11:47 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Scalia also doesn't seem to know that cannons and Gatling guns on limbers are legal under federal law.

/johnny

125 posted on 07/29/2012 1:13:45 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Including sticks that haven’t been sharpened.


126 posted on 07/29/2012 1:30:49 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper

I don’t know what a limber is.


127 posted on 07/29/2012 1:31:47 PM PDT by wastedyears ("God? I didn't know he was signed onto the system.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Scalia playing 'the trickster' with that one. He knows as well as anyone that the 'letters of reprisal and marquis', to be understand, necessarily imply private individuals owning the current equivalent of a fully armed battleship or aircraft carrier including nuclear weapons AND a fleet of combat jet fighters on board.,P>The Second Amendment is actually about affirmation of the Huguenot right, carved out in France at the end of the Religious Wars, to not be subjected to the ancient privileges of nobles and commoners (nobles had the privilege, commoners were subject to severe limitations).

The d'Guise faction (Catholic) ~ the majority party, demanded everyone stack arms. The Huguenot faction (Protestant) ~ the minority party, refused ~ and they instantly proved that if you have firearms you have "The power".

The Brits never did quite get into something that revolutionary until maybe the late 19th century, but in America, the Huguenot idea of keeping firearms at home caught on big time! Here Spaniards of every social class had firearms, and then the Dutch, the French, the Scots, etc. as they arrived took up the custom immediately.

The second amendment affirms that commoners can have weapons just like the nobles. The text of the Constitution spells out clearly that everybody has a God given right to have the biggest weapons available!

128 posted on 07/29/2012 1:34:18 PM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
Sorry, I should have been more specific. Carriage mounted Gatling with limber. The limber is the box on two wheels that holds ammo, spares, and the gunner's hooch.

/johnny

129 posted on 07/29/2012 1:36:53 PM PDT by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

My wife when she is mad! ;-)

LLS


130 posted on 07/29/2012 1:38:11 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
pretty much...
131 posted on 07/29/2012 1:57:43 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
yup, i doubt it will take till 2075 for the next one...
132 posted on 07/29/2012 2:07:01 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Delta 21
a crew served hand gun... what will they think of next??? 8^)
133 posted on 07/29/2012 2:08:43 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: carriage_hill
I AM the militia.

regulate
c.1630, from L.L. regulatus, pp. of regulare "to control by rule, direct" (5c.), from L. regula "rule" (see regular). Regulation is first recorded 1672, "act of regulating;" sense of "rule for management" is first attested 1715. Regulator is first recorded 1655; in Eng.

infringe

Origin:
1525–35; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break

134 posted on 07/29/2012 2:24:07 PM PDT by smokingfrog ( sleep with one eye open (<o> ---)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Let’s don’t get over-excited here. When he says, “We’ll see”, that doesn’t mean he would vote for something in particular or not. It just means “we’ll see which side gets 5 votes”. He could be talking about John Roberts!

Also, I have always been in the camp that believes that the Bill of Rights only applies to the national government, not to the states (after all there were states back then with established religions, for instance). So, I don’t take his remarks as a departure, just a realistic appraisal. He doesn’t want to speak to specifics, after all.


135 posted on 07/29/2012 2:36:03 PM PDT by Da Bilge Troll (Defeatism is not a winning strategy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SuziQ
Why would it be a problem for a state to ban the sale of rocket propelled grenade launchers, or fully automatic weapons?

The problem comes with the perception that any thing a state can do, the federal government can do.

136 posted on 07/29/2012 2:43:23 PM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears
You've already limited your argument to the very-limiting term "firearms."

I haven't used the term "firearms", but the term "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment.

137 posted on 07/29/2012 2:46:47 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.”

Yeah, where does it say that? I'm pretty sure if several men could lift it onto a truck, that is still "bearing arms"

I'd even say driving the truck is bearing arms...or flying the aircraft. Where do I draw the line. you may ask?

Unless you've committed a weapons-crime...I don't.

138 posted on 07/29/2012 2:49:19 PM PDT by ROCKLOBSTER (Celebrate Republicans Freed the Slaves Month.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
If you read the Federalist Papers debate that I posted in post 69,you will see that the Framers meant the militia to either complement or offset (or even substitute for) the power of the standing army. If the standing army had cannons, the militia would have been expected to have proficiency with cannons, too.

It doesn't read like the Framers intended to limit arms to something less than what the standing army would use, if the militia were meant to be a check against it.

-PJ

139 posted on 07/29/2012 3:20:46 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It doesn't come naturally when you're not natural born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: ROCKLOBSTER
I in the Rochester, NH Walmart yesterday when I ran cross a libertarian with a Glock 40 in open carry, Legal in NH. I don't care for libertarians and I am a wheel gun fan myself so we talked about the lousy choices that Walmart carries for Windoze games.

Vote for Ovide, Smith vowed to veto Constitutional Carry.

140 posted on 07/29/2012 3:55:03 PM PDT by Little Bill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Mechanicos
It means even YOU as a FEDERAL employee have no authority to regulate our God Given right to keep and bear arms.

What are you talking about? They already do, and there are approximately 20,000 gun laws on the books to prove it.

141 posted on 07/29/2012 4:45:16 PM PDT by Sarajevo (Don't think for a minute that this excuse for a President has America's best interest in mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

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

Really? I never saw that clause in the 2nd A.

142 posted on 07/29/2012 4:47:33 PM PDT by Sarajevo (Don't think for a minute that this excuse for a President has America's best interest in mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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

I saw this interview and it is not take out of context. Scalia believes that the legislature has the power to put reasonable regulation on the weapons that one can own and keep. My neighbor does not have the right to build a nuclear weapon, I think he used the example of anti-aircraft missles in the interview.


143 posted on 07/29/2012 4:52:04 PM PDT by rem_mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

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

I saw this interview and it is not taken out of context. Scalia believes that the legislature has the power to put reasonable regulation on the weapons that one can own and keep. My neighbor does not have the right to build a nuclear weapon, I think he used the example of anti-aircraft missles in the interview.


144 posted on 07/29/2012 4:52:04 PM PDT by rem_mitchell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sarajevo
Yes.... and none were Constitutionally authorized. The procedure to modify the 2nd which leaves no wiggle room is via article 5. Anything else has been unauthorized federal power grabs and why you should vote not guilty on such laws when you're on jury duty.
145 posted on 07/29/2012 5:01:16 PM PDT by Mechanicos (When did we amend the Constitution for a 2nd Federal Prohibition?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
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.

The 2nd Amendment is there so the people can combat the tyranny of an oppressive government. In order to do that, that means the citizenry should be able to own military hardware if they so choose.

Which is why it says "arms" instead of "bayonets and muskets" and that whole "shall not be infringed" part is there.

146 posted on 07/29/2012 5:36:46 PM PDT by Repeat Offender (While the wicked stand confounded, call me with Thy Saints surrounded.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”

or something?

147 posted on 07/29/2012 6:10:59 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (0bama's Welfare, Food Stamps, Division and Disability 'Legacy')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

The 2nd Amendment nor any of the so called federal “bill of rights” were designed to apply to the states.

We have Separate & distinct State Constitution’s for that propose, and most free State Constitutions garentee 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!


148 posted on 07/29/2012 6:41:32 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Greystoke

Guns were once required for citizens in some areas. Keeps taxes down.

;-)


149 posted on 07/29/2012 6:56:04 PM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is necessary to examine principles."...the public interest)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“Save, legal abortions” was a product of incorporation, you know the idea that Washington can shove its ugly head into any state and tell the State what it must & must not do.

Roe V. Wade I remind you was these Federal employees telling Texas that it could not prohibit the murder of the unborn.

They Claimed to justify their usurpation under the 9th Ammedment which reads:

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.”

So Basicly washington’s hand picked employees are saying that becase They can’t do it, our States who are suppose to be seperately autherized by their own State Constitutions, can’t do it either.

Imagine that our States bound by the limitations of a 11 page Federal Constitution designed only to authorized a small handful of almost excursively foreign powers. We would have no domestic government at all!

But of course we have a Gigantic Domestic government imposed not only by Distant Washington unrestrained by it’s hand picked employees in black robes, but also by our local & state aperatious.

In short the Federal injustice system is designed to insure every man is a slave to an all powerful State no matter where he lives or whom he votes for.


150 posted on 07/29/2012 6:59:05 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 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