Skip to comments.Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
Posted on 07/29/2012 8:04:50 AM PDT by Greystoke
click here to read article
You've never made a cannon, have you?
Cannons, BTW, are legal to build and own under federal law.
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.
This is surprising to anyone?
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.
I'll see your "constitutional originalist" and raise you a "Declarationist", Scalia.
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.
Agreed. This is a far cry from what today’s anti-gun jackasses are spewing though... Regardless of political Party apparently.
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.
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.
Correct. The NFA of ‘34 and ensuing legislation should be thrown out.
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?
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.
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.
“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.
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.
What about pointed sticks?
” 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.