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 ...
/johnny
Scott H Greenfield, at his blog Simple Justice calls
the “felon in possession” ban “the collateral sentence
of death.” This was a while ago. He’s a defense attorney.
He was only reiterating what the Heller decision said
years ago now. Shouldn’t have been a big surprise to
anyone. I do see that broadcasting it on Fox News is
a disturbing novelty.
Except that the Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution. Even those who wrote and signed the Declaration knew that they were committing treason if caught
and as always you conveniently leave out the tenth amendment
Besides— the Tenth is part of the Constitution. If the Constitution doesn't apply to the states, than neither does the Tenth....
And when you sit on the court with Scalia you can have that discussion.
You can't fix “stupid”, of course...
...but I'm not ready to call nifster “stupid”...
...yet.
Next time you want to argue the Constitution do so with Scalia....his words about what originalists believe. Since he sits on the court and you don’t.... and never will, his opinion carries more weight.
As for Scalia... as an American citizen-voter, I have authority over all those people in Washington. All I have to do is convince, or join, a large enough number of fellow-citizens who share my opinion.
“But SC justices aren't elected!”
I bet if enough Americans got together to demand it, they'd find a way to change all kinds of stuff about the SC, including the people on it, and without running afoul of the Constitution.
One can also falsely shout fire in a crowded theater if you have permission from the theater owner. That situation is a question of property rights, not free speech.
To a limited degree, so also can churches and newspapers and street corner speeches be regulated. Constitutional rights are not absolute.
You may wish that is what he said, but it is not. He said way more about the subject than he should have, in any case. He did mention Head Axes in the context that they were bare because they frightened people. This and Cheney all in the same day.
Granted, they have been made less so over time through gradual encroachment of the State.
This is not a good thing.
That they were originally written to be as rigidly observed as the Ten Commandments is my absolute opinion. About the only thing the framers didn’t do was engrave them in stone, or as mentioned above, specify penalties for breaking them.
Yep. I just can't go along with Neighborhood Nuclear Superiority, and hey, I have folks up the street I don't want anywhere close to an M79. I have a granddaughter to think about.
Just sayin'...
On the other hand, the local paper would probably call my home "an arsenal," or maybe even "a weapons cache."
Yeah, there is gun control, but there is the right to protect ourselves in the ten minutes it takes the cops to get there. And there's the right to protect ourselves from an out-of-control government, too.
The Second Amendment ain't about duck hunting, y'all.
Very well put.
LLS
if they cannot be trusted back in society with their complete set of rights, then do not let them out of jail.
nuff said.
t
“Between Obama, Romney, Roberts and now Scalia, I think we can kiss liberty goodbye.”
Riiiiiiight!
/sarcasm
STOP making sense! You keep doing that, you’ll get yourself in trouble.
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.