Posted on 07/29/2012 5:03:18 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
In a shocking statement made this morning on FOX News Sunday with Chris Wallace, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said he believes the U.S. Constitution allows states to regulate firearms. In a response to a question about the Second Amendment from Wallace, Scalia said the following:
... there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned some weapons. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried. --They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne.
This statement will be perceived as a bolt of lightning in conservative circles and it will be received as a breath of fresh air to those that seek common sense gun standards. If one of the most conservative people in the land, Antonin Scalia, believes the 2nd Amendment allows for gun limitations, it will be difficult for gun fundamentalists to continue to make their case that gun ownership is absolute and not subject to any control by government authorities.
This has been a high visibility issue in New Hampshire because this state has very liberal open carry provisions. During the recent term, several legislators routinely carried their firearms openly in the State House. Additionally, those open carry provisions have come under scrutiny because members of various liberty groups have been quite vocal about their open carry gun rights at any venue, much to the chagrin of gun control advocates who want some open carry and concealed carry restrictions. A group of collaborators were recently kicked out of an Occupy Wall Street assembly in New Hampshire in part because they were carrying guns openly.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
All I can say is that WE THE PEOPLE need to take our country back!!!!!!!
Like obama says when he doesn't like something that is said he said...lol at myself as I type...
this whole damn bunch makes me laugh..glad I'm old and the years ahead are not as many as have passed~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Carole
Keep on upgrading Congress at every election turning over Rinos and Dems to keep them in check. I think there’s a good chance we get 12 to 20 extra seats in the House and a fairly good shot at getting 60 seats in the Senate.
Indeed Scalia is right, none of the first 10 amendments so the Federal Constitution were ever intended to restrict our States.
We have State Constitution’s for that propose, and most free State Constitutions garrentee the right to keep and bare arms.
WE HAVE NO NEED FOR WASHINGTON TO TELL US WHAT WE CAN AND CANNOT DO WITH OUR OWN STATE!
is liberal speak for complete prohibition of gun ownership by anyone other than government operatives.
I don't know. I haven't yet watched the video.
LOL @ your comments. Thank you!!! I'm in your same boat.
Increase in gun/ammo purchases in 5..4...3...
Exactly! I would love for him to defend a state's right to establish an official religion - much as Maryland was once officially Catholic. I mean, either you believe in state's rights or your a selective and hypocritical douchebag - and I assume he's not one of those.
I think you are avoiding the bigger picture here. Scalia just handed the libs a club, and they are going to use to great effect for the next 20 plus years. Scalia must be about to retire, so he’s worried about all of the nasty books that are going to be written about him. Even if he believes what he is saying, why say it? Unless you have jumped ship and now believe all of the liberal hype that something MUST be done?
Consistency, people. Let's let the Left be the hypocrites.
Scary guns... Aren’t they exactly the type of guns that the 2nd Amendment was supposed to protect? Why is Scalia ruling on ANY of these issues if the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to the States? The Supreme Court has lost its collective mind.
Well, Switzerland (at least some of the cantons) allows a citizen to buy artillery, like howitsers, and they’re on mil surplus sales. But swiss rules are under socialist attack too.
State Governments having basic police powers to regulate arms, i.e, heavy weapons, artillery, is nothing new.
Banning shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles does not infringe upon the right to keep and arms.
Banning citizens of the possession from owning semi-auto firearms and detachable magazines greater than 10 rounds does infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms.
You are correct. He spoke of “bearing arms” which means something that can be held. That being said, a SAM, while it can be held, can also reasonably be regulated.
Agreed. He did not make any sort of alarming statement. His statement got my attention because I knew some would overreact....and of course our opponents might seize on it. He was simply saying there is clear precident of limitations, and specifically referenced state level limitations. We cannot own nuclear weapons, for example. He also was careful not to pre-judge any future cases by not taking a position that nothing can be limited. No concerns here.
All leftist thought, from the limousine liberalism of a George Clooney to the murderous horrors of Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, is of and from Satan. Leftism is a contaminant in the human cognosphere, not a natural component of it.
Satan is smarter than we are, and he never sleeps. Those over whom he has the most influence are like maniacally evil energizer demons.
Every once in a while one of them escapes, like David Horowitz, but who knows how or why?
I will take 3 more Scalias and 3 more Thomases, and keep Alito.
vaudine
Then we have to make sure that the laws are never passed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.