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.
With that statement, Scalia is as much a constitutional scholar as Obama is.
Gov. Henry said it well when he noted that “he smelt a rat tending to monarchy.”
.” said the judge, who is protected by armed bodyguardS (plural) and has the best security money can buy at the expense of the public.
You've already limited your argument to the very-limiting term "firearms."
Including sticks that haven’t been sharpened.
I don’t know what a limber is.
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!
My wife when she is mad! ;-)
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.
152535; < Latin infringere to break, weaken, equivalent to in- in-2 + -fringere, combining form of frangere to break
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.
The problem comes with the perception that any thing a state can do, the federal government can do.
I haven't used the term "firearms", but the term "arms" as used in the 2nd amendment.
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.
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.
Vote for Ovide, Smith vowed to veto Constitutional Carry.
What are you talking about? They already do, and there are approximately 20,000 gun laws on the books to prove it.
Really? I never saw that clause in the 2nd A.
“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.
“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.
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.
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 Constitutions 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!
Guns were once required for citizens in some areas. Keeps taxes down.
“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.