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 ...
What are you talking about? They already do, and there are approximately 20,000 gun laws on the books to prove it.
Really? I never saw that clause in the 2nd A.
“I think this is being taken out of context, as usual.”
____________
I saw this interview and it is not take out of context. Scalia believes that the legislature has the power to put reasonable regulation on the weapons that one can own and keep. My neighbor does not have the right to build a nuclear weapon, I think he used the example of anti-aircraft missles in the interview.
“I think this is being taken out of context, as usual.”
____________
I saw this interview and it is not taken out of context. Scalia believes that the legislature has the power to put reasonable regulation on the weapons that one can own and keep. My neighbor does not have the right to build a nuclear weapon, I think he used the example of anti-aircraft missles in the interview.
The 2nd Amendment is there so the people can combat the tyranny of an oppressive government. In order to do that, that means the citizenry should be able to own military hardware if they so choose.
Which is why it says "arms" instead of "bayonets and muskets" and that whole "shall not be infringed" part is there.
or something?
The 2nd Amendment nor any of the so called federal “bill of rights” were designed to apply to the states.
We have Separate & distinct State Constitution’s for that propose, and most free State Constitutions garentee 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!
Guns were once required for citizens in some areas. Keeps taxes down.
;-)
“Save, legal abortions” was a product of incorporation, you know the idea that Washington can shove its ugly head into any state and tell the State what it must & must not do.
Roe V. Wade I remind you was these Federal employees telling Texas that it could not prohibit the murder of the unborn.
They Claimed to justify their usurpation under the 9th Ammedment which reads:
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the people.”
So Basicly washington’s hand picked employees are saying that becase They can’t do it, our States who are suppose to be seperately autherized by their own State Constitutions, can’t do it either.
Imagine that our States bound by the limitations of a 11 page Federal Constitution designed only to authorized a small handful of almost excursively foreign powers. We would have no domestic government at all!
But of course we have a Gigantic Domestic government imposed not only by Distant Washington unrestrained by it’s hand picked employees in black robes, but also by our local & state aperatious.
In short the Federal injustice system is designed to insure every man is a slave to an all powerful State no matter where he lives or whom he votes for.
-PJ
Yes, the federal injustices did pronounced their limits to apply to our States. But in doing so they must follow historic precedence too, That means the exceptions historically present and necessary for some State & local Governments will be available to Washington to exploit.
Incorporation of the 2nd amendment was ultimately the DEATH of the 2nd amendment because it cannot be upheld in every local situation, it now also cannot be upheld against Washington.
Tench Coxe, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:Why, Scalia? To frighten you and every other functionary of the federal government so that you'll remember who's boss and not slip into bad, old habits of governments around the world and throughout time.
"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The 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."
Nope watched it myself.
We have not lost anything. The Justice is warning us that the second amendment is in jeopardy.
He used "Head Axe" as an example. However 100 clip magazines were what prompted the discussion. Scalia would have been better off to have said nothing. Sort of like another Dick forgot to do today.
In the post I replied to, you basically left out anything that could be put into the category of heavier ‘arms’, such as machine guns/anything crew served, explosives, and anything launched out of a tube.
And I have no doubts that should the need arise for regular citizens to become the 'militia' once again, folks who want those weapons will find them.
Justice Joseph Story, appointed to the Supreme Court by our Constitution’s principal author, James Madison, wrote in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States” (1833), “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against usurpation and arbitrary power of the rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
Amen!
LLS
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.