Quantcast
  1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!

Scalia: Guns may be regulated

Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by ATCclears, Jul 29, 2012.

  1. ATCclears

    ATCclears Seattle area, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,262
    Likes Received:
    1,373
    Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

    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."

    As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

    In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

    Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. "Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.
     
  2. Dunerunner

    Dunerunner You'll Never Know Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,476
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    That is just wrong. Especially when you think of what the state of weapons technology was in the 1780's! The Constitution intended the Militia to be able to defend the country from enemies foreign and domestic and that militia would have to be as well armed as the military it was opposing.

    My opinion!
     
    Redcap and (deleted member) like this.
  3. PDXoriginal

    PDXoriginal PNW Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    457
    Likes Received:
    448
    I am glad this is coming out, I hope it wakes some of you up that titles mean NOTHING. Republican... Democrat... Conservative... Liberal means absolutely squat.
     
    Patriot1668, jimwsea, Galant and 18 others like this.
  4. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    Too late to invoke Militia argument - last SCOTUS decisions disconnected gun ownership from the Militia service.
     
  5. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    19,487
    FD, help me out a bit please... Do you have a link to more info on that?
     
  6. Jacurso

    Jacurso Douglas Co. Active Member

    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    52
    DITTO!
     
  7. dmancornell

    dmancornell Portland, OR New Member

    Messages:
    2,225
    Likes Received:
    1,589
    So basically the real meaning of "checks and balances" is the three cabals within federal regime fight each other for the prize of raping the civilian population.

    And the ruling class wonder why they are despised.
     
  8. RB87

    RB87 Oregon Active Member

    Messages:
    500
    Likes Received:
    228
    Read the Heller decision and McDonald v Chicago.
     
  9. Grunwald

    Grunwald Out of that nut job colony of Seattle, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    What I did not like was the very last sentence in the original post. Him stating that he does not want for someone to undo what he has tried to achieve for a number of decades just proves that these guys are black robed clowns. How about all of you achieve this - follow the constitution in your rulings. That's it, nothing else.

    Do not twist the constitution in order to achieve ome result. It is not your job. ....and hey there, you dunces in Congress - just stick to writing laws that are within the limits set by it as well. If you think that something in the constitution is outdated then there is a mechanism built into it for making changes
     
  10. 2506

    2506 Seattle Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,368
    Likes Received:
    735
    The current court doesn't seem to rely on precedent in making decisions, even if it's their own.
     
    rkoreis and (deleted member) like this.
  11. Jamie6.5

    Jamie6.5 Western OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,194
    Likes Received:
    4,381
    As a condition of the right to keep and bear, yes they did, affirming that: "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" stood alone on it's merits, regardless of the previous sentence in the 2ndA.

    But they didn't disconnect it from the standpoint that armed citizens can't/couldn't form a militia, or based on their ability to bear a military "grade" weapon.

    So, from the affirmative side of what type of weapons, in times of a need for a/the militia, no, they didn't.
     
  12. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    In fact it's in the very beginning of the Heller opinion:

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
    firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
    traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
    Pp. 2–53.


    This proves you wrong, and also clarifies on classes of weapons being protected :

    We therefore read Miller to say
    only that the Second Amendment does not protect those
    weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens
    for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
     
  13. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    19,487

    The ONLY reason short-barreled shotguns/rifles and/or select fire weapons are not "typically possessed" by law-abiding citizens is because a group of a-hat legislators voted it out of the reach of a good-sized portion of the citizenry.

    Sheesh, I'd have me a safe full of "NFA-class" weapons IF I could afford it... One Draco converted SBR will have to do... for now


    They read, but fail to really THINK.
     
    Grunwald and (deleted member) like this.
  14. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    This is actually one of my favorite topics. As a mental exercise, come up with an example of a right that is, should be, or could be unlimited and completely unregulated without any consequences.
     
  15. Stomper

    Stomper Oceania Rising White Is The New Brown Silver Supporter

    Messages:
    12,902
    Likes Received:
    19,487
    It's not the right(s) that should be regulated, rather "regulate" (see punish) those that infringe, that is to say perpetrate crimes or rights violations on others... Not punish everybody by restricting them for the actions of the very few, or dumb it down to the lowest common denominator. Rights are something one must rise up to, because its a personal responsibility.

    Laws are for the lawless. If everyone practiced "the golden rule", 99.9% of ALL conflicts would be no more.
     
  16. Grunwald

    Grunwald Out of that nut job colony of Seattle, WA Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,833
    Likes Received:
    1,175
    Here's another thing to help your mental exercise. I've read/heard the argument that the definition of the word "regulate" was quite different back when the Constitution was written. Back then it meant to "make regular", as in remove obsticles. So for instance the commerce clause was there to give the federal government the power to make sure that the trade between the different states would not be intefered with by states' governments - no restrictions, no tarrifs etc.
     
  17. fd15k

    fd15k Tigard,OR Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,440
    Likes Received:
    491
    I see a lot of words but no practical example. Say grenade launchers were as easy to buy as handguns. Most people would either not buy them, or would use them carefully "for fun", or keep them in their SHTF stash "to resist governmental tyranny". There would also be a few individuals (just based on probability) that would go and blow up school buses, bridges, gas stations, etc, violating the right to life of the numerous citizens at once. We can penalize them after the fact with life in prison, or death penalty (which I am against btw), but societal cost would remain - hundreds of citizens being dead because of one stupid or intentional action of a single individuals. Sure thing there are other methods for mass murders, especially for determined individuals - fuel bombs, fertilizer bombs, vehicular assaults, sabotage, improvised chemical weapons, etc. However, that separates individuals based on the level determination, and it almost eliminates accidental deaths. We have plenty of negligent discharges today with semi-autos, one can only imagine an RPG ND. With all of that in mind, is there a room for an unlimited right to own and carry weapons ?
     
  18. FE427TP

    FE427TP SW WA New Member

    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    1
    So did any of you bother to look up the full interview or are you parroting what you read on the internet like I did initially with it? I saw the whole interview in it's second broadcast and the linked story has a LOT of tin foil fear mongering in it.
     
    Jamie6.5 and (deleted member) like this.
  19. knuckle Head

    knuckle Head southeast Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,631
    Likes Received:
    918
    we need to just kick out all of these oxygen thieves and start over
     
  20. SonicBlue03

    SonicBlue03 Snohomish Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,239
    Likes Received:
    421
    Translation: "Hey Wayne (LaPierre), buy me a nice house for my retirement or I'm going to f-over your membership."

    Thankfully Scalia has gotten fatter as he's gotten older. He's a cheeseburger away from a coronary.