Scalia Comments Raise Anxiety on Second Amendment: Importance of Pro Gun Lobbies and Attorneys

Maggie's Notebook ^ | 7-30-12 | Maggie@MaggiesNotebook

[maggiesnotebook]

This is why pro-gun lobbies are so important, and why all lawyers are not bad. Believe me, those lobbies and their attorneys have been pouring money into SCOTUS scrutiny because they know it is coming, and Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia has confirmed it. (to clarify my title - Scalia did not say pro gun lobbies and their attorneys are important. I said it.)

Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”

“We’ll see,” he said.

His comments also follow those of lawmakers who have called for tougher gun-related laws in the wake of the shootings – most recently New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats who said Sunday they will introduce legislation this week to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet, as was done before the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.”

They are scheduled to announce the bill to the public Monday outside City Hall in New York City. Source: Fox News

(cartoon: substitute Awaiting ObamaCare and with Awaiting SCOTUS Appointments)

HOWEVER, Scalia's comment on the Second Amendment goes much further than "we'll see:"

WALLACE: Let’s turn to a story in the news now. With the massacre in Colorado, and that is gun control. You wrote in 2008 the opinion in District of Columbia v Heller, the majority opinion that said the Second Amendment means what it says, people have a right to bear arms. Question: How far does that constitutional right go. Can a legislature ban semi-automatic weapons, or can it ban magazines that carry a hundred rounds without violating an individual’s constitutional right to bear arm?

SCALIA: What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitation on the right to keep and bear arms are permissable. Some undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called “afrighting,” which if you carried around a really horrible weapon, just to scare people, like a head axe or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor. So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. There were certain location limitations…

WALLACE: What about technological limitations? Obviously, we are not now talking about a handgun or a musket. We are talking about a weapon that can fire 100 shots in a minute.

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be handcarried – to keep and bear, so it doesn’t apply to cannons, but I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How can you decide that if you are a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. My starting point, and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be born. We’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.

The full video and transcript of the Scalia interview is here.

J.D. Longstreet, writing at FaultlineUSA (read the entire piece here):

The Second Amendment does not grant US citizens the right to own and bear arms.  It recognizes that right, already granted by God, and makes darn sure the government KNOWS they (the government) cannot tamper with it. Problems is -- modern government is not nearly as smart as those first American politicians (though they THINK they are) and modern politicians are hell-bent on subjecting every American to the yoke of government -- just like the government burden of King George from which our forefathers went to war to free us.

Whenever a left-wing, liberal/progressive politician begins to speak of "common sense" gun regulation, there is a near audible gasp from Americans coast to coast.  The reason?  Common sense is in extremely short supply among the political practitioners of the political left.   It is one of the characteristics that marks them, sets them apart, sanctifies them,  for the world to recognize. There simply is NO COMMON SENSE amongst them.

When they use "common sense' and "reasonable" in referring to gun control laws then you know it is time to hide your guns (as many Americans are busily doing today).

Before you cast your vote in November, and even in your primaries if they have not yet occurred, remember that there will likely be several Supreme Court appointments made by the next president. If you read or listen to Scalia's explanation of how interpreting the Constitution should be done, it will make complete sense to you, and you will vote for Romney, because he is the only hope we have for more Scalias on the Supreme Court. Thanks to AF Branco at Conservative Daily News for the brilliant cartoon.

[DuncanWaring]

We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be handcarried – to keep and bear, so it doesn’t apply to cannons,...

If someone in the 18th century didn't have the freedom to amass a collection of cannon for his frigate, how would he carry out a Letter of Marque, as authorized in the US Constitution, Article I, Section 8?

[Yo-Yo]

Surefire 100 round quad stack AR magazine. Get 'em while you can...

[petro45acp]

Anyone used one of those besides the corporate sponsored three gun team guys?

Looked at the guts of their 60 rounder. split/nested follower, coil springs with a guide, takes 60 rounds from a strip LULA very well, weighs a ton....ish.

[ZULU]

The only legitimate limitation on “shoulder” arms is that limiting fully automatic firearms which is in place now.

The Second Amendment only applies to Shoulder Arms.

Scalia’s remarks are unnerving. After what happened with Roberts, its more than apparent that significant pressure can be exerted to influence CONSERVATIVE judges to move to the left. Curious as it appears, liberal judges NEVER can be pressured to move right.

My guess is the harpies of the court - Kagan, Bader-Ginsburg, Soto-Mayor, and the one guy on the left - Breyer, are unrelenting in their arguments on this subject to Scalia, Alitto, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy. They are making the minority view the majority view by pure strength of personality and dedication.

As for that loathsome reptile Chris (Are you a Flake? ) Wallace, he curdles my stomach every time he appears on FOX. He should be haunting CNN or ABC, etc, not a network which presents itself as “fair and balanced”. Were it not for his daddy, he would be selling cars somewhere.

Not only is it important to make sure Obama does not get in, its equally important to make sure the GOP keeps a majority in the House and extends their Senate delegation to that magic number 51. Right now, Rasmussen gives them 48 seats in the fall and the Dems 47 with the balance up for grabs.

Finally, PLEASE, PLEASE, get out there and vote for CONSERVATIVES in the County and municipal GOP committees, or, better yet, run yourself. They are a shadow government and MANY of these seats are uncontested.

[GreyFriar]

I think that in the 18th Century, the arming of ships was commonly done for defense against pirates and because they could be issued Letters of Marque. From what Scalia said and how I’ve always understood the First Amendment, it referred to individual persons having the right to own guns, because all the men of a community were considered to be members of the miltia for the defense of the community.

And it was an armed citizenry that the royal governments were afraid of, the people having the capability to defend themselves from an oppressive government. Some local communities has cannons as part of their militia organization but the key, in my view, was to ensure that the individual person had the right to own firearms.

[LibLieSlayer]

It is perfectly legal for a citizen to own a cannon. If scalia does not know this... he is not qualified for his position. Anyone that watches “Pawn Stars” has seen Rick buy and shoot many cannons.

LLS

[DuncanWaring]

From the Declaration of Independence:

...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, ...

If private citizens do not have a power, they cannot consent to have the government exercise it on their behalf.

If I do not have the right to own a fully-automatic machine gun, I cannot delegate that right to the government.

[Tzfat]

Considering the well-known facts regarding the Founders' reason for the Second Amendment and the Insurrection Act, Justice Scalia is wrong unless the government is also limited. The point of the Second Amendment is to oppose a tyrannical government. If the people can be limited, then the limit should only extend to balancing of capabilities. If government forces that can be brought to bear on its citizens have a capability, the people cannot be limited in that same capability.

You (the government) gets automatic weapons - we the people get automatic weapons, etc, you don't want your citizens to have automatic weapons - then forbid them from use against your citizens.

[ZULU]

Duncan,

Forget it. Fully automatic weapons were otulawed some time ago. In the hands of a good marksman, an AR-15 is quite effective and should the need arise, the skills acquired in its use can be easily transferred to an M-16.

Basically I agree with you in principle, but it isn’t worth hanging your hat on at this point. The sheeple are a stupid and gullible bunch.

Personally, I like my Garand. It did just fine in WW II.

[JimRed]

The only legitimate limitation on “shoulder” arms is that limiting fully automatic firearms which is in place now.

What phrase in the Second Amendment makes that a "legitimate" limitation?

[The Sons of Liberty]

What phrase in the Second Amendment makes that a "legitimate" limitation?

Just like the way Roberts made the requirement of 0bamascare to purchase health insurance a "tax" they will come up with a way to limit guns. Emperor Hussein 0bama is chomping at the bit.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

It seems the time is getting ever closer for a revolution when people like Scalia start talking about gun regulations. What is the matter with the Judges? It seems that, as they rise up, there brains turn to mush. Just look at what happened with Obamacare. It is now Constitutional to force everybody to buy something they do not necessarily need. Start watching people!

[BobL]

Scalia is telling conservatives that the Court is NOT going to do their dirty work. And the Court shouldn’t. If conservatives want gun rights, they must ELECT people that support gun rights, rather than relying on a handful of people getting older every day.

[GlockThe Vote]

Bingo - those attacking Scalia don’t get it.

He knows what others are thinking on the court - especially Roberts and he is sending a warning to all of us.

[DuncanWaring]

Fully automatic weapons were otulawed some time ago.

They're not outlawed, they're taxed and the supply limited, to the point of pricing them out of most people's budget.

Personally, I like my Garand. It did just fine in WW II.

I'll agree with you on that.

[ZULU]

At least the UN Arms Treaty talks collapsed.

You are right about the fully automatics. Because of the regulation and costs though, they’re rare. Some states, like mine, even ban them.

Eternal vigilance.