Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

National Journal ^ | July 29, 2012 | John Aloysius Farrell

[Greystoke]

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."

[Triple]

agreed - just how were privateers, of which there were many, getting outfitted?

“The Lucy” is a great example of a privateer/ship that I have Googled in the past. She was armed like the warship she was.

[reefdiver]

Frightening ? What does that mean? How about frightening speech, any talk about limiting the first amendment ? What nonsense. Scalia just opened a can that worms will be crawling out of. Some days I regret opening my laptop

[Darren McCarty]

That goes back to the old common law where Open Carry was allowed and encouraged, but concealed carry was frowned upon in the old days. Criminals hide their guns. Law abiding show their guns. That's why a lot of placed allowed open carry historically and still do to this day.

[Perdogg]

I am not making excuses for anybody this is what he said:

from the Hill

The conservative justice described, as he has many times before, his “textual” approach to interpreting the Constitution, which requires that its provisions be read according to their meaning at the time of its drafting. New gun restrictions, he said, would be weighed “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,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.”

[KrisKrinkle]

I think that what this boils down to is that the words “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” have not been adequately examined in terms of their scope, extent and constraints. What is the scope and extent of this right? What are the constraints?

Some people on this forum have said that the right is unlimited, up to and including keeping man-pack nuclear weapons. On the other hand, some of those plus still others have said that the right to keep and bear arms is limited by the property rights of others. But these positions are mostly opinion. Actual discussion with substantiation for the reasoning has been scant.

I will point out that “the right of the people to vote” (same phrasing as “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) is not unlimited.

The Second Amendment community needs to discuss this issue (because the other side will) and they have not been doing so as far as I can tell. If we don't get our stuff together, the other side will prevail.

[Sherman Logan]

Liberals claim that Open Carry will take us back to the days of the Old West.

The funny part is that most towns in the Old West had strict gun control within city limits. Many of the famous gunfights, including the OK Corral, were precipitated by law enforcement attempting to disarm citizens in compliance with the local laws.

[mylife]

Get your hi cap mags while you can.

[wally_bert]

This LAWs rocket may need to be regulated. The rest maybe not.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qblo8Bl8o1c

[Bogey78O]

Justices talk in hypotheticals because they can’t state their specific opinions on untested issues till it’s before the court.

Scalia would not vote to ban most if not any types of small arms because of the obvious way in which he interprets the 2nd amendment. If a ban or restriction places a defacto infringement on a right, he’ll strike it down.

Look at Heller. He cites specifically the defensive need of a pistol and how it must be at the ready to properly defend.

[muawiyah]

As a practical matter the Founders lived in a time when the private individuals owned the big guns as well ~ Tony's memory doesn't quite go back that far, but even in Italy his (surviving ancestors) were probably mercenaries with vast arrays of privately owned cannon of all sorts.

People who didn't have such weapons didn't survive to have modern descendants.

[TonyM]

All I can say is, MOLON LABE

[3Fingas]

I’m in the fight brother/sister.

So are my kids. We are not giving up without a fight.
We vote and participate in elections in hope that the Republic can be saved and our freedoms will be preserved/restored. Like your screen name, we have to confront the falsehoods, inaccuracies, and misinformation of the brain-washed liberals, the huckster lawyers, the greedy politicians, decadent media personalities, and the self-absorbed and distracted neighbors we encounter or hear about on a daily basis.

Don’t give up. There are millions more like us. America can rediscover her liberty again. Things often look the bleakest before the sun rises.

[mikrofon]

Folks, read/watch these accounts for yourself, from multiple sources.

Mute/avoid any follow-up commentary by the LSM “journalists”...

[Marcella]

“But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize.”

I'll watch the interview later today to get the context correct. The words, “frightening weapons” could mean anything. My handgun would be a “frightening weapon” to the person at whom I was aiming.

[Cicero]

1. As already noted, taken out of context by the trouble-making presstitutes.

2. “It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said. What else would he say? A proper judge doesn’t decide any case before it has been heard, even if the conclusion is pretty much foregone.

[eddie willers]

I think this is being taken out of context, as usual.

"He looks.....black".

[CityCenter]

Thank you.

These comments were part of a larger conversation on how the constitution should be interpretted. Before people react to a headline and throw Scalia under the bus, they ought to actually watch the interview which was highly informative and entertaining. Scalia’s a good guy and a great conservative. There is no reason to think he has abandoned the cause and turned his back on he deeply held beliefs.

[Ted Grant]

Scalia was speaking of the old common law tort, afrightening

[crz]

Hey Scalia..the 2nd applies to YOU and ONLY You and the federal government.

As does the entire Bill of Rights.

You who championed the Chicago case still think the federal government will save you? You get what you asked for..the feds now have their fingers so far into local issues you will never be able to get them out...unless..

[ConservativeInPA]

Personally, I believe in citizen ownership of any weapon the military uses. A M72 isn’t going to take out an Abrams, and if the government decides to use tanks on citizens, I want to be able to take out an Abrams.

We need constitutional carry in every state ... open and concealed.

Fully automatic weapons should not require a license.

Silencers/surpressors should not require registration and a $200 tax.

Short barrel rifles should not require a license.