Scalia: Guns may be regulated

[Blitzkrieg]

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].

This is my exact opinion. I would like to buy you a beer sometime and shoot the breeze. BTW my ancestors fought that day and one died on Lexington Green, April 19th, 1775 after firing on the redcoats

 

[Blitzkrieg]

"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"....

Back then common usage meant rifles, pistols, swords, pikes, muskets, hand grenades, mortars, rockets and cannon

Seems we lost something along the way, eh?

 

[cascadianliberty2012]

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!

That's not your opinion. That is a fact!

 

[gehrheart]

I see it, read it and interpret it as "shall not be infringed. Thus, I should be able to own what the military has and should not have to ask for permission to do so. The idea that this is to keep these weapons out of the wrong people's hands is to imply guilty before they have done any wrong. Are we not supposed to be innocent till proven guilty? All to often these days we give more and more of our liberty away to feel safer.. I don't feel safer at all, rather I feel more endangered.
We should not have to ask for permission to own them.. We already have that RIGHT.
we should not have to prove innocence against presumptive guilt.
No other bill of right is required to have a permission slip to exercise. Should we start applying for a permit to have free speech?
It's not about hunting..
nor is it about sport..
It's about keeping our rights, liberty and freedoms from an oppressive government, and we are slowly giving up that right.
And it's both the dems and the repubs that are taking them.

 

[fd15k]

I see it, read it and interpret it as "shall not be infringed. Thus, I should be able to own what the military has and should not have to ask for permission to do so. The idea that this is to keep these weapons out of the wrong people's hands is to imply guilty before they have done any wrong. Are we not supposed to be innocent till proven guilty? All to often these days we give more and more of our liberty away to feel safer.. I don't feel safer at all, rather I feel more endangered.
We should not have to ask for permission to own them.. We already have that RIGHT.
we should not have to prove innocence against presumptive guilt.
No other bill of right is required to have a permission slip to exercise. Should we start applying for a permit to have free speech?
It's not about hunting..
nor is it about sport..
It's about keeping our rights, liberty and freedoms from an oppressive government, and we are slowly giving up that right.
And it's both the dems and the repubs that are taking them.

Once in a while we get yet another scholar to publish their opinion on the Second Amendment. Fortunately (or unfortunately, it really depends) Founders allowed for Supreme Court to assume the responsibility of interpreting the laws and the Constitution, and all other opinions are pretty much irrelevant

 

[gehrheart]

Once in a while we get yet another scholar to publish their opinion on the Second Amendment. Fortunately (or unfortunately, it really depends) Founders allowed for Supreme Court to assume the responsibility of interpreting the laws and the Constitution, and all other opinions are pretty much irrelevant

Well golly gee! Im a scholar now!
Oh and if you read the first words, I did qualify my statement as an opinion of mine by starting of with I see it, read it and interpret it as
True all that, But I have yet see a SCOTUS ruling that that gives the government the control they have now on gun control. In fact, we have resonantly see the control being taken away. Therefore, (and of course this is my opinion as isn't most all of this here in this thread?) The laws we have as to what we can own and who can carry are in fact an infringement on a given liberty.
I still don't see how its right to have to ask for permission to have a given right..

 

[fd15k]

True all that, But I have yet see a SCOTUS ruling that that gives the government the control they have now on gun control.

US v. Miller would be one such case:

United States v. Miller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In fact, we have resonantly see the control being taken away. Therefore, (and of course this is my opinion as isn't most all of this here in this thread?) The laws we have as to what we can own and who can carry are in fact an infringement on a given liberty.
I still don't see how its right to have to ask for permission to have a given right..

This is not my opinion: Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.
Now, the text really says most, perhaps you have one example of an unlimited right ?

 

[gehrheart]

Ah yes.. that one did slip my mind. And I still feel that ruling is wrong. It still doesn't cover all the regulations we have now. It still does not cover why I have to ask permission fist. And I still feel its wrong.
unlimited right... nope dont have an example of that one, I see every day how they keep trying to limit more and more of what rights we have.
they are coming after free speech..
the fourth is all shot to hell with NDAA and TSA and homeland security wire tapes.... ect ect.
NDAA took out the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh!!
Tenth has been shot for a long time and still being taken away.

I see our liberty's being taken away. And we as a whole allow it because so many are willing to sacrifice a little here and there until we have nothing left.
You, from what I have read of your post believe there should be regulation over who and what on the 2nd. I disagree with that ideology with every bit of my liberty loving soul. As well and every other infringement they have taken on all of the bill of rights.
we will never agree on that. And I am not going to try and make you see it my way, this is the internet however and more the moment I am still allowed to espouse what I feel. ( I do see an orwellian future) I hope to never have to ask permission to speak my mind. Bad enough I have to herded like cattle and be violated every time fly.

At least they (SCOTUS) have allowed the chicago and DC to have guns again!

I will however never feel any different on the fact they are infringing upon my rights.
and more will come, sadly..
Hopeless... ? maybe, but Im still supporting Ron Paul and we all know he wont make it, but I will hold to by ideals regardless 1

 

[fd15k]

Ah yes.. that one did slip my mind. And I still feel that ruling is wrong.

Here we agree.

It still does not cover why I have to ask permission fist.

Permission for what ? To purchase, own, carry ? Most of such restrictions are imposed by the states, and looking ahead in your post I can see you're not against state powers.

Tenth has been shot for a long time and still being taken away.

You, from what I have read of your post believe there should be regulation over who and what on the 2nd. I disagree with that ideology with every bit of my liberty loving soul.

I am a reasonable person. Present me (and others) with a valid argument why I (or we as a group) should allow for you to own and possess in public weaponry of any kind without limits, without reasonable concern for my (our) safety. That is while not depriving you of individual right of self-defense and the tools that are useful in exercising such right.

And I am not going to try and make you see it my way, this is the internet however and more the moment I am still allowed to espouse what I feel.

That's the thing. I see a lot of "shall not infringed, what part don't they understand ?" comments around here.

 

[gehrheart]

All for State rights, however federal rights trump state rights. Yes most of those laws are in fact state laws... And as I see it illegal. Based on my belief of the 2nd, those states do NOT have the power to enforce those laws.
And yes permission to carry.. permission to own permission to have.

See that the thing, I no matter how well I want to sit down and write it out, will never ever change you mind on it. You are comfortable with forsaking some liberty to feel safer, while I am not. Then there are those that are willing to give up all liberty to have perceived safety. End the end, non of us are right, but all needed in an attempt to find the happy place, the balance.
Yes I feel is should not be infringed, that If I want to have a 50 cal machine gun and RPG rockets I should be able to if I could afford to do so... Course, there is nothing in the Bill of rights that guarantees me a place to shoot them for fun... But I can have them.
I a not going to get into the trap of trying to convince you or any one why I feel that, not worth the time to type it as you already have you convictions on the matter and there is nothing I or really any one can say to change that. Just As I can never understand how any one is willing to give up any ounce of liberty to feel "safer"
Meh...
At least we agree on Paul.

 

[Grunwald]

Once in a while we get yet another scholar to publish their opinion on the Second Amendment. Fortunately (or unfortunately, it really depends) Founders allowed for Supreme Court to assume the responsibility of interpreting the laws and the Constitution, and all other opinions are pretty much irrelevant

As I recall this is not really true. The supreme court asserted that power for itself and there was quite a bit of uproar during the early days when they started rulling on the actual constitutionality of laws passes by Congress.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Amazing to see how many on gun forums are clueless about the Founders intent

 

[skydiver]

When I was a kid, my buddies and I took our shotguns to school to hunt doves afterwards. We left the shotguns and shells in the classroom.

 

[fd15k]

To think of how far we have gone in the wrong direction. When I was a kid, my buddies and I took our shotguns to school to hunt doves afterwards. We left the shotguns and shells in the classroom. By the way...that was Junior High in Patterson, California!

Yes, when you were a kid, this is what we had (not literally in 1986 of course ) :

View attachment 156748

and this is what we have now :

View attachment 156749

So which one is a better indicator of direction : the map above, or lack of shotguns in high schools ?

 

[Blitzkrieg]

Yes, with government approval and PERMITS which are utterly unconstitutional

Try to take a step back and see that I agree we are fighting back VS how far behind the curve we are

 

[Father of four]

"Shall not be infringed"...

That Constitutional Statement is just plain hard to understand. Reading is hard!

 

[Father of four]

http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/b48ca44137542005c22121780f11bd5f4g.jpg

 

[Darknight]

Yes, when you were a kid, this is what we had (not literally in 1986 of course ) :

View attachment 156675

and this is what we have now :

View attachment 156676

So which one is a better indicator of direction : the map above, or lack of shotguns in high schools ?

Lack of shotguns in high schools! What you are talking about is a government regulated program that the participanets have to pay for.

There is a gas station in Roseburg, Chucks Texaco, that at one point had a pic of the city officials, not to many years ago mind you, with gun belts on oc. My first thought was how great that was seeing politicians exercising their rights, but my second was how far we are from being able to do that now days without issues. There should be no restrictions on oc in any state, except maybe a court house, but everyone hates it when the judge rules against them or is berating and sentencing them. But, they should have to provide storage while we are in court. Before anyone from WA chimes in, I am from OR and we are not given the same convenience to store our weapons before going in past security.

 

[Blitzkrieg]

That Constitutional Statement is just plain hard to understand. Reading is hard!

I blame the extremely tilted publick screwl edumacation and the lack of proper parenting

 

[fd15k]

Lack of shotguns in high schools! What you are talking about is a government regulated program that the participanets have to pay for.

So number of green states between 1986 and 2011 doesn't matter either ? What part of "unrestricted" don't you understand!