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.
/johnny
I think civilian vessels on the high seas should be armed to protect themselves from pirates and other threats
Well, Switzerland (at least some of the cantons) allows a citizen to buy artillery, like howitsers, and they’re on mil surplus sales. But swiss rules are under socialist attack too.
You are correct. He spoke of “bearing arms” which means something that can be held. That being said, a SAM, while it can be held, can also reasonably be regulated.
Agreed. He did not make any sort of alarming statement. His statement got my attention because I knew some would overreact....and of course our opponents might seize on it. He was simply saying there is clear precident of limitations, and specifically referenced state level limitations. We cannot own nuclear weapons, for example. He also was careful not to pre-judge any future cases by not taking a position that nothing can be limited. No concerns here.
He’s still wrong. Merchant ships ran ranks of privately owned cannons.
Then Scalia is an idiot w/o knowledge of history:
1 -- Privateers; privately owned batleships.
2 -- There have been multiple court decisions [including at least one USSC] justifying private firearm regulations because the arms in question were not shown to the court to have valid militia value.