Scalia: Guns may be regulated

[fd15k]

 

[soberups]

I would not want to share an apartment building...or for that matter a city block...with someone who wanted to excercise a "right" to bear C4 explosives, rocket launchers, chemical weapons etc. At some point you run into the issue of whether or not a person has suitable knowledge and equipment to store and use such items in a manner that does not endanger his neighbors. Firearms of any sort would not really apply, since ammunition by itself is no more dangerous to store than many other typical household products.

 

[SonicBlue03]

I would not want to share an apartment building...or for that matter a city block...with someone who wanted to excercise a "right" to bear C4 explosives, rocket launchers, chemical weapons etc. At some point you run into the issue of whether or not a person has suitable knowledge and equipment to store and use such items in a manner that does not endanger his neighbors. Firearms of any sort would not really apply, since ammunition by itself is no more dangerous to store than many other typical household products.

I think most sensible people agree with you. The implication that Scalia is willing to step away from the stance most attribute to him as more reactionary right-wing on 2A and implement some levels of restrictions on firearms is somewhat new.

 

[Trlsmn]

National Journal = admitted liberal bias

As usual follow news to its source, in this case Fox News watch video starting at minute 7. In no way does he say he is in support of gun control. He simply says that these will be decided in future cases. In short he said nothing other than these things will come in front of SCOTUS just as they always have been.

Scalia opened no door that wasn't already open, that door is simply the door to the Supreme court court room, a door that has always been open as that is what the court does.

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News

 

[fd15k]

National Journal = admitted liberal bias

As usual follow news to its source, in this case Fox News watch video starting at minute 7. In no way does he say he is in support of gun control. He simply says that these will be decided in future cases. In short he said nothing other than these things will come in front of SCOTUS just as they always have been.

Scalia opened no door that wasn't already open, that door is simply the door to the Supreme court court room, a door that has always been open as that is what the court does.

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate | Fox News

So right to own rocker launchers or not ?

 

[Stomper]

Oh heck yeah!! You just better have some FANTASTIC liability insurance... what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

 

[Trlsmn]

So right to own rocker launchers or not ?

Actually if you pay the proper tax and background check and do what ever needs to be done to procure one you can own a rocket launcher, should that not be the way it is?

 

[fd15k]

Actually if you pay the proper tax and background check and do what ever needs to be done to procure one you can own a rocket launcher, should that not be the way it is?

That's the current law/regulation, but the question is whether it is a right. Basically if the legislature decides tomorrow to close down DD transfers and confiscate already owned ones (with compensation), is it constitutional ? The way I understand Scalia, likely it is Constitutional to ban DD's altogether.

 

[Jamie6.5]

Did you actually watch the interview FD?
The way I understood him, he was pretty clear about "arms" that could be carried, Ie "borne."

He didn't sound real keen on tanks, F-16s etc., but is you could bear (carry) it, he sounded like he'd be okay with that.

 

[Stomper]

Well that's great! I can carry 600 rounds of belted 7.62x51 NATO, and two AT-4's and/or an RPG with 6 warhead refills... I should post a WTB thread in the classifieds here! (I keed, I keed).

 

[Blitzkrieg]

I think SC justices should be regulated

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Actually if you pay the proper tax and background check and do what ever needs to be done to procure one you can own a rocket launcher, should that not be the way it is?

"Shall not be infringed"...

 

[fd15k]

Well that's great! I can carry 600 rounds of belted 7.62x51 NATO, and two AT-4's and/or an RPG with 6 warhead refills... I should post a WTB thread in the classifieds here! (I keed, I keed).

I think you lack a bit of a background. "Can be carried" is like one boilerplate out of several that they have and will apply. Another one is "dangerous and unusual", and yet another one is "common use", etc. Needless to say that Scalia is against overturning precedents, even extremely bad ones such as Slaughterhouses (or maybe he is just anti-gay ) :

JUSTICE SCALIA: No, no. I'm not talking
about whether -- whether the Slaughter-House Cases were
right or wrong. I'm saying, assuming we give, you know,
the Privileges and Immunities Clause your definition,
does that make it any easier to get the Second Amendment
adopted with respect to the States?
MR. GURA: Justice Scalia, I suppose the
answer to that would be no, because -*
JUSTICE SCALIA:
Then if the answer is no,
why are you asking us to overrule 150, 140 years of
prior law, when -- when you can reach your result under
substantive due -- I mean, you know, unless you are
bucking for a -- a place on some law school faculty -*
(Laughter.)

Basically Miller stands, and the tests defined in Miller will be utilized in the future cases.

 

[Misterbill]

This is not new. Read Heller fer cryin' out loud. They left the door wide open to regulations and restrictions.

All Heller does is say that the .Gov HAS to allow you to have a handgun in your home. That's really it.

Heller's big deal was that it for the first time definitively affirmed an individual right to own a gun. It left just about everything else up to future cases.

 

[deen_ad]

This is not new. Read Heller fer cryin' out loud. They left the door wide open to regulations and restrictions.

All Heller does is say that the .Gov HAS to allow you to have a handgun in your home. That's really it.

Heller's big deal was that it for the first time definitively affirmed an individual right to own a gun. It left just about everything else up to future cases.

Yep, doesn't even confirm you have a right to concealed carry. But there are some cases that have said that you have a right to protect yourself where ever you are and that requires a weapon of some sort. That would mean that they have to allow either open or concealed carry.

 

[AlphaCoyote]

The Second Amendment was never about hunting or target shooting. It wasn't even about self-defense against rogue criminals. It was about maintaining an armed populace capable of resisting government tyranny -- most specifically federal tyranny. Remember this was a time when people trusted their states, but were wary of a national government. Hence the "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" language. The problem being addressed by the British when they marched on Lexington and Concord was that there were cannon there capable of challenging the firepower of British hegemony. That was in the minds of the Framers when they crafted the Second Amendment and was a recent memory for those who supported the Second Amendment's adoption.

If the feds have certain arms, I believe the 2A guarantees "the people" the right to have sufficient and equivalent arms to resist the feds. I know that's uncomfortable for the modern world with the incredible firepower of the federal government, which is new. But those changes in circumstances are why the Constitution also provides for an amendment process. If people want to limit the people to arms only of a certain type and lethality, let's have a constitutional amendment process started. This incremental ceding of firepower to a central government authority is, in my judgment, inconsistent with the intent of the Framers.

[Disclaimer for anyone monitoring internet posts: I am in full compliance with federal law with respect to firearms do not support unlawful attempts to change, violate, or circumvent current law].

 

[DMax]

"Shall not be infringed"...

Then lets get some personal drones and I am not talking about the collective borg we have a party of those.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Then lets get some personal drones and I am not talking about the collective borg we have a party of those.

There is no weapon prohibited by the 2nd, it implies and in fact promotes all weapons that a warrior can possess

If we had them the current tyranny would be a heck lot harder to enforce. Imagine if men like me had stingers at Waco

 

[Cuthbert Allgood]

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.

i've been telling people that for years. all they do is give me a strange look. some people proceed to chastise and lecture me about that kind of crap. stupid people really think there is a difference between the two parties. the only difference is the logo or mascot.

 

[One-Eyed Ross]

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

US v Miller, 1939

"common usage" will be the key, I believe, that will decide most cases of "what type of arm"....