JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
8,268
Reactions
18,027
<broken link removed>

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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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!

Too late to invoke Militia argument - last SCOTUS decisions disconnected gun ownership from the Militia service.
 
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.
 
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
 
Too late to invoke Militia argument - last SCOTUS decisions disconnected gun ownership from the Militia service.
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.
 
Read the Heller decision and McDonald v Chicago.

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&#8211;53.


The current court doesn't seem to rely on precedent in making decisions, even if it's their own.

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.
 
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 purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.


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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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 ?
 
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.
 
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.
 

Upcoming Events

Redmond Gun Show
Redmond, OR
Klamath Falls gun show
Klamath Falls, OR
Centralia Gun Show
Centralia, WA

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top