Skip to comments.Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
Posted on 07/29/2012 8:04:50 AM PDT by 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationaljournal.com ...
I can understand that, but too often we react without having all the information we need. It’s getting to the point that any mere slight gets a person labled a RINO. By some measures, I wonder if a true conservative even exists anymore with the exception of the name valler who is 100% true to the definition of “conservative” in their own mind.
The M72 is a militia weapon, is only one shot and is hand-bearable. There is no authority to regulate it in the hands of the militia.
Watching the interview now and it was taken out of context
Yes, but Scalia should have known to keep his trap shut on this important issue and not give the liberals anything they could distort to their advantage.
Well Regulated meant well trained in the language the amendment was written.
. . . and meanwhile, the criminals fear the regulation, or flout it . . . ?
Scalia is now failing us. But this should not be a surprise.
Put a man in Washington long enough, and he will start to see his power as the source of our liberty. He will soon believe that anything that comes from himself must be good.
But Scalia is wrong here. The integrity of our nation does not depend on Antonin Scalia’s faith in himself. It depends on Scalia’s ability to uphold external truth.
Antonin—both your moral character and your intellect are being tested here.
In Justice Scalia’s case, senility is a “best construction” to the alternative of treason.
This photo shows a Polaris missile launch at the navy's San Clemente Island range, in1959.
We don’t need purity tests; however, we do need jurists who decide in the favor of reducing government. We have far too many regulations on gun ownership already and an ever-more ubiquitous government presence in our lives in general. Scalia may have been giving the answer he thought was appropriate for the venue he was at, but any talk of additional regulations on gun ownership, even if it is hypothetical, causes my “Oh-crap-ometer” to rise another degree or two.
I saw many interesting things during my 18 month tour there on “Goat Island”. SCI has a unique history prior to the Government taking it over.
Why we need to replace Scalia with a Thomas. That has to be the one uncompromising goal of every conservative.
“Menacing” weapons? “frightening” weapons? Where the hell did they find this pansy?
I don’t think Scalia has gone over the other side here. There obviously has to be some clarification of what a US citizen can and cannot own in the way of “arms”.
I don’t think anyone believes a citizen should be able to own a fully armed tank or fighter jet. What about 50 caliber machine guns and hand grenades, tank killer missiles? The legal battle will be fought where they’ve been for years already: automatic or semi-automatic, hand carried rifles, clip size, caliber, etc.
Is everyone that naive? No one makes it far up the legal ladder with a historically accurate attitude to original intent. ‘Conservative’ is so only in relation to the alternative. It’s not the absolute a lot of us want it to be.
Also, Scalia is Catholic, and like all Catholic politicians is subject to ‘Sudden Liberalism Syndrome’. (See Rick Santorum on George Zimmerman).
True, but he's not as clear a thinker as Thomas.
Orthodox Jews don't get a pass on beards in the military.
Slander isn't protected speech.
I can't carry a gun into a prison.
Those hoping for an unquestionable Constitutional black and white will never find it, because the Constitution is only as powerful as the majority's will to follow it. Every day that you wake up is a day that you will have to fight for your liberties.
See this post of mine from five years ago that shows the Federalist Papers debate on this topic.
I wonder how he would explain letters of marque.
Meanwhile, Smith-Wesson starts a third shift at all it’s small arms factories.
No, but states should have their own armed forces not under control of the President. The Governors should have their own state militias if their states want them.
Exactly my thought. It’s like every government official in Washington has drunk at least a mug full of Adolf’s brew, and some at least two gallons.
The comments about menacing handguns were particularly egregious. What do these pecker-heads plan on leaving us for protection, cap pistols?
Welcome to the federal politics shell game. Sucker.
Oooh! Ooooh Ooooh! But we have to vote gop because of scotus appointments the gop shills squeal. Like it matters worth a hill of beans.
First and foremost, I think there are plenty of examples of non-government military taking out Abrams tanks out there, without requiring TOW missiles and the like.
That said, I certainly agree where you're coming from. If a citizen can fear the arms of their government, then the 2nd has absolutely failed. There is no requirement in the constitution for a loud weapon, nor a limitation on the number of times it can fire with a single pull of the trigger (certainly weapons that existed at the time, even if liberals love to ignore that concept.)
To me, however, the bridge 'too far' is area of effect weapons. Such weapons, to me, belong only in a structured environment which has self regulation. An organized militia seems right and proper for having tanks and Apache helicopters, as the misuse of these weapons can be regulated and defeated by the militia itself.
I've seen at close hand disastrous and deadly accidents with pyrotechnics handled by highly trained and very well regulated technicians. It takes very little imagination to consider what would happen with self regulated handling of explosives, chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.
All Scalia said was yes, the are some limits to rights in the constitution, such as his dissent in the Stolen Valor Case.
However, these restrictions must meet a constitutional test.
That is all.
This is what frustrates me the most about some people on FR. We claim that the media is lame, yet pants are wet by out of context statements intentially published to elicit a response.
Dude, we have people here that think “a lot of hits” on Google means “correct.”
I fear FR is losing the edge that great (GREAT) freepers like Buckhead honed...
Men need to retire before the estrogen production overtakes the testosterone production. 70 may be the right age.
The Militia was to be regulated. Not the arms themselves.
Which is patently a lie since owners of ships had cannons. There are also records of private citizens owning carriage guns.
[[frightening weapons? and just exactly WHAT the hell does that mean???]]
That my friend is a biased opinion by a judge who apparently doesn’t hold his oath to maerica and the judicial system in very high regard- biased opiniopns like that (and like hte one by robwerts who was afraid of ‘appearing biased’) are what lead to legislation from the bench which is a kind way of sayign that our supreme court is slowly dismantling our constitution and taking ou r rights away bit by bit
Roberts gave the left a HUGE gift to tax/penalize us for whatever they want to now (’for hte good of the country mind you’) and scalia apaprently is goign to severely limit or even work towards outlawing firearms now? We’re almsot a socialist nation now- government demanding ‘payment or else’ (for obummercare insurance) (which incidently is how the mafia used to operate- goign aroudn and demanding that businesses pay them for ‘insurance’ ‘or else’!, aND scalia is apparently goign to see to it that americans have no real way of defending ourselves agaisnt a mafioso-like goverment- What a swell nation we’ve become- Thanks Dems!
“To me, however, the bridge ‘too far’ is area of effect weapons. Such weapons, to me, belong only in a structured environment which has self regulation. “
The natural laws of economics would place limits on the ownership of such weapons, without the government doing so. Nuclear weapons, artillery, and the like are expensive. Only the (very)wealthiest citizens, corporations, and local and state governments could afford them, and that would limit their number and use accordingly.
[[All Scalia said was yes, the are some limits to rights in the constitution]]
That’s NOT all he said- He said ‘frightening weapons’ which is a baised opinion- not an objective observation- He’s tipped his hat about how he leans in his bias, and as we’ve seen recently in supreme court cases, the court is making rulings based on bias- and peopel here have a right to be worried when a justice makes remarks like that after witnessing the biased INJUSTICE coming out of the supreme court lately
someoen else i nthe thread said [[Scalias 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.]]
That may be, but that’s what peopel htought of roberts too- little did they know roberts would hand the left a huge victory by allowing our government to use mafia-style/encforced government insurance on us either- (”Buy our insurance or else pay the price!” is essentailly what roberts has now allowed our governemt to do to us) Never in our wildest dreams did we think roberts would stoop to that- but he did- peopel here are right to be worried scalia may too-
“The right to bear arms is not going to be defined by the Constitution. It will need to be upheld in the legislature.”
Legislatures don’t seem to matter all that much any more.
Example: executive orders that circumvent enacted law and go unchallenged.
Example: unrestrained, rampant rule-making by regulatory agencies that also go unchallenged
Example: the outright refusal of the executive branch to uphold enacted laws which — you guessed it — goes unchallenged by the legislature that passed them.
We are gradually moving from “the rule of law”, to the tyranny of the regulators and rule by dictat .
[[Menacing weapons? frightening weapons? Where the hell did they find this pansy?]]
Exactly- and apparently i nthe mind of scalia these weapons are only ‘menacing’ and ‘frightening’ when they are in the hands of LEGAL LAW ABIDING citizens- but evidently they are ‘cute’ and ‘cuddly’ i nthe hands of CRIMINALS who WILL STILL OBTAIN them illegally? Is that his reasoning? IF he was an objective judge, and rational thinking person- his comment should have been along hte lines of “Well, criminals have menacing and frigthening weapons, and so the public should have the right legally to own menacing and frightening weapons in order to combat the ILLEGAL CRIMINALS- citizenas shoudl have the right to defend the4mselves agaisnt such a growing and dangerously armed segment of society
And just for hte record- Had someoen i nthe movie audience had a weapon- many lives might have been saved in colorado when that coward and scumbag opened fire on unarmed citizens- He knew that most likely noone would be carryign a weapon i na movie theater- and he- like all cowards do- picked on a defenseless group- and this is apparentyl what the left wants to do to us? Make us defenseless by makign it illegal to own firearms? Will
Roberts open up another gaping hole i nthe consitution and allow the left to disarm the public?
Some are criticising the publics worries abotu the comments scalia made- however- we’re watchign our supreme court erode more and more of our previously constitutionally protected rights- and folsk are should be worried abotu comments like what scalia made- becausel ittle by little, our rights are beign taken away by the left and recently, by what we thought were staunch objective conservatives
[[Example: executive orders that circumvent enacted law and go unchallenged.]]
Let me add “Go unchallenged by a spineless GOP that allows the left to trample all over them and all over the citizens of htis country”
[[We are gradually moving from the rule of law, to the tyranny of the regulators and rule by dictat .]]
And anyone that tries to point htis out is labelled a drama queen- however, i nthe meantime, the left continue to bit by bit make themselves ‘the law’ with NO regard for actual law- they prove this almsot weekly- yet I’ve seen NOONE in congress take a stand agaisnt htis- IF the GOP tried to do what the left is doing- the left woudl be screamign bloody murder, and endless investigatiosn would be opened up and peopel would be fired and thrown in prison- yet when the left does it all the right does is say ‘tsk tsk’
All you people who are dumping on Scalia are dead wrong (I hope). Scalia can talk all he cares to on a case that has been decided. But he cannot talk about FUTURE cases lest he open himself up to charges that he has already decided the case in advance. Do you want him to bow out when his vote may be all that stands between our country and tyranny ?
Go ahead Anthony, let’s get the Second American Revolution started just like the first one: unpopular, tyrannical laws topped off with an attempted gun grab on April 19th, 1775.
Yet try to even slightly limit someone's 'right to an abortion' which is nowhere written in the constitution, and all hell breaks loose with the libs.
[[If a ban or restriction places a defacto infringement on a right, hell strike it down.]]
Just like roberts struck down a mandate which fines/taxes the people and which places a defacto infringement on our rights’ (simply for existing)?
Many in the conservative world never imagined roberts would rule i na biased manner- yet he did- just sayin
It is clear that Scalia was taken out of context...but I wish that he would clear the air a bit at some point by making note of the fact that the Congress has the power, under the Constitution, to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal...”
How is it that Congress granted such letters during the War of 1812 to shipowners to take on British naval vessels if those shipowners didn’t ALREADY own a multitude of cannon? This is almost akin to Bill Gates or Warren Buffet or Walmart owning a carrier battle group to protect their business interests, and then being given the power to take on the Russian or Chinese navy in a time of war.
The very power to grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal is quite meaningless without the pre-existing ownership of some pretty devastating weapons by private citizens. thus, there should be NO limits on what people may own, perhaps with the restriction of WMDs (and a theoretical argument in FAVOR of such weapons in private hands could be made...how can a creation of the people - government - have powers that the people themselves don’t have?).
When is comes to protecting the 2nd Amendment, there is not a single elected or appointed SOB to be trusted, period. One and all, they only embrace that stance to further their political careers, but when a ill wind blows, they will change course in a heartbeat.
There will come a day when gun owners will have to bear their fangs and cross the Rubicon. Otherwise, they will lose that most sacred right which sets America citizens apart from all other nations’ subjects.
People also have to take their time to read and understand what he said. I understood what said clearly and why other people refuse to do so is mind-boggling.
Scalia, This is a lie. My family has had military weapons since 1640.
All returning military combatees from wars brought home machine guns, grenades, AK47`s etc from enemy hands as war trophies, even Chinese burp guns from Korea- and were sanctioned by the American Legion and local govts, state govt etc., as they were proudly showed off during 4th of July parades since the 1940`s that I witnessed and on display at the American Legion on loan from the returning vets.
We have muskets and cannon here from Revolution, muskets from the Civil War, Russian assualt rifle, MI carbines, BAR`s, etc. Evidently Scalia has never read any hometown newspapers about any wars wherein the GI`s are in print telling of the weapons they brought home- all legal- and sanctioned by govt, local, state and federal. This tradition has been going on since the 17th century here and now they say its not right. These F traitors !!! SOB`s!
My neighbor has a 1776 cannon on her lawn .
My neighbor up the hill has 2 American cannons brass from 1776 on her lawn.
The town next door has a Civil War gatling gun on display brought back by my great-grandfather`s Colonel, as also a WWI german howitzer field gun brought back by another vet as a war trophy./. Gimme a break... We are all armed here to the teeth.
Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
That's what one of the founders thought.
I appreciate your thinking on such a thing, but the reality is that a deadly chemical and explosive weapons can be made from common goods. Making delivery systems for them as well is easy and inexpensive. Just because a cannon costs tens of thousands in a store does not mean making one runs more than $20. Or a rocket launcher that runs tens of millions can't be reproduced using adopted materials for hundreds.
And would you really care for Apple Militia? Google Forces? NBC Rangers? Or the Rainbow Fudge Packer Squadron launching an attack on Chick-Fil-A?
I'm certainly more concerned with this solution than the existing status of my rights being infringed.