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 ...
Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
Some of the founders would disagree with you.
/johnny
Cannons of that era are and have been lawful under federal law. I have relatives that build and shoot them for a hobby. Gatling guns are legal to make and own and use, as well.
During the early days of founding, there was no Navy. Letters of marque and reprisal were issued to citizens that happened to own ships with cannons. In other words, the FedGov borrowed cannons they didn't have from citizens that did have them.
/johnny
In the main I concur 100%, but I believe that Scalia may have been communicating a subtle warning to gun rights advocates about Roberts. With Roberts suddenly showing up shaky in the “strict constructionist” vein, any gun rights case that goes before the court is now a gamble.
In fact, I don't think that statement is used anywhere else in the Founding Documents. My memory isn't what it used to be. I know, Google is my friend, well just an acquaintance.
First: "Congress shall make no law..."
Second: "...shall not be infringed."
Sounds pretty absolute to me. I guess the only way they could have made their point stronger would be to prescribe summary hanging for anyone violating these rights.
Maybe we should do that next time...
"The People have the right to obtain and carry weapons and ammunition. Anyone who hinders the exercise of that right, physically, or by regulation, or by taxation shall upon detection be hanged by the neck until dead from the nearest available horizontal structure."
All I have is a curb. This may take a while. ;)
/johnny
Agreed on all points.
The active duty Militia can be regulated. The personal arms they bring with them to Militia duty can be as well...
What I have in my gun safe is none of their concern. Federal, State, or local...
Shall not be infringed...
Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding...
Shall not be infringed.
You get a C-. Try harder next time.
He’s still wrong. Merchant ships ran ranks of privately owned cannons.
Never give up. Never surrender.
Even if it means I have to bleed for it to make sure my children live in a Country who still holds freedom dear...
Muzzle-loaded cannons are legal. Breech-loaded cannons can be owned and operated with the proper FFL permits. That includes pre-WWI restored field artillery pieces. Machine guns can also be owned and operated, say on a range, with the proper FFL permits.
They are regulated, but not proscribed.
/johnny
“Between Obama, Romney, Roberts and now Scalia, I think we can kiss liberty goodbye.”
Jim, in today’s climate, give me 4 Scalia’s and 5 Thomas’s. Yes, we can do without the Bummer’s and the Romneyette’s and the Robert’sons, but Scalia qualified his comments, and the msm, lame as it is, did their usual thing and took his comments out of context. And with the 4 Scalia’s and & 5 Thomas’s on the Court, we will seldom have a need for a discenting opinion.
And btw, for those others reading this post, it is all up to us...We the People...and our votes in primaries, in general elections, and at the grass roots. We all have a job to do...it is time for me to pitch in...any takers with me?
Asking the permission of the State.
I decided some years ago I was never again going to ask the permission of the State to do anything firearms related.
So I haven't bought a gun in a store, or obtained a permit to carry ("bear") any I might have, since then.
Should I find at any time the necessity to carry concealed, for instance, I'll just do it, and the State be damned.
Stock up. No further warning is necessary.
You quote the word CONGRESS that does not mean that the states are necessarily prescribed. You cannot openly engage in supporting the over throw of the US government without being charged with treason....You cannot shout fire in a crowded theater. You cannot print the shipping schedules of ships during times of war.....There are plenty of examples of non-absolutist instances.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
/johnny
Ain’t no “Congress” in the Second, hair-splitter.
So your state could ban all guns, reinstate slavery, declare Zoroastrianism the official religion, order the people to submit to a police search every other Thursday, and because the US Constitution only applies to the Feds you’d have to go along? Well, no, and hell no, because
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof...shall be the supreme Law of the Land...any Thing in the Constitution and Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
And if you see smoke and flame in a crowded theater, and you’re reasonably certain it isn’t in the script of the play, you damned well better shoult “fire!”
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.