View Full Version : Incoming - Scalia: Guns May be Regulated!
platoonDaddy
07-29-12, 12:06
I posted this comment on another forum: Being a cynical oldFart this president or any president just needs to issue an Executive Order and criminalized the possession of whatever he|she deems is an assault weapon.
As FDR did on private citizens holding gold of any sorts.
Executive Order 6102 is an Executive Order signed on April 5, 1933, by U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the Hoarding of Gold Coin, Gold Bullion, and Gold Certificates within the continental United States". The order criminalized the possession of monetary gold by any individual, partnership, association or corporation.
***************************************
Interview on Fox: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/
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.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729
Heavy Metal
07-29-12, 12:38
He also said civilian ownership of Rocket Launchers may be legal too.
Thought that was in the Heller decision. But didn't the Heller decision state that private citizens are allowed to own the equivelant of whatever the mil/LE folks use? I thought that was the reason why DC's attempt to only allow revolvers got crushed.
GeorgiaBoy
07-29-12, 14:05
Nothing new, and he makes a valid point. Local and/or federal level lawmakers can indeed impose regulations or restrictions on what can be owned and carried. That has been going on since the early 1800's.
The second amendnent isn't some kind of Grand License to buy/own anything you want, or carry whatever and wherever you want.
Add this to your reading list: 3 simple steps Obama can take on gun control. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726)
Business_Casual
07-29-12, 14:08
The second amendnent isn't some kind of Grand License to buy/own anything you want, or carry whatever and wherever you want.
Fair enough. So who draws that line? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi? How about John McCain?
BC
davidjinks
07-29-12, 14:16
It amazes me that these clowns can come out and make rulings and say…You can't restrict a person's right…Then come out months later and say…We'll have to see in the future about restricting peoples rights.
I also like how he stated that the current justices aren't "Political". Total bullshit!
No sitting justice should be allowed to give interviews or speak out in the political world. They're job should be and should only be…What is Constitutional and what isn't. That's it, nothing more!
Just my opinion of course.
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.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729
GeorgiaBoy
07-29-12, 14:19
Fair enough. So who draws that line? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi? How about John McCain?
BC
In a perfect world, it would be the People themselves.
Oh my goodness - do NOT read into his statement. The man is an active sitting Justice. It would be unethical for him to say what his decision would be. Like the man said, "...and bear..." means weapons that can be carried by hand. He gave the example, that cannons would not be covered under the 2A. But then he mentioned hand held rocket launchers as they can be hand held, then it would have to be decided on.
As soon as I heard it (I watched it live) I knew that someone on this forum as well as others, would immediately think exactly what you did.
Scalia never implied or stated that semi auto rifles can be regulated. He said (and rightfully so) it would have to be decided if or when a case is presented to the court.
Wallace asked the question: "...can a legislature ban a semi automatic weapon or can it ban magazines that carry 100 rounds without violating an individuals Constitutional right to bear arms?" (the power of Tivo)
Scalia's reply was in clarifying the Heller decision, in which he wrote the majority opinion, it said that "...it will have to be decided in future cases. What limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible. Some are undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. Such as the tort called affrighting... like a head axe or something. Yes there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. There were certain location limitations..."
The Supreme Court cannot rule on a law that doesn't exist yet. It also cannot ethically state what its stance on a potential law would be. The same would be applied to an individual Justice.
Scalia, understands that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the intent of the founders and the society as a whole at that time.
Too often we seem to think that it was only the founding fathers that who had any say on the Constitution. However, keep in mind that the States and the residents of those States had to ratify the Constitution. So Scalia is correct in his presupposition.
Fair enough. So who draws that line? Chuck Schumer? Nancy Pelosi? How about John McCain?
BC
The elected legislatures. You and I elect our representatives. They intern vote on laws submitted. If those laws violate the constitution, then it "can" and "should" be overturned.
This is how our system was designed and is supposed to work. I say the latter part with some bit of tongue and cheek of course. :secret:
Business_Casual
07-29-12, 17:12
The elected legislatures. You and I elect our representatives. They intern vote on laws submitted. If those laws violate the constitution, then it "can" and "should" be overturned.
This is how our system was designed and is supposed to work. I say the latter part with some bit of tongue and cheek of course. :secret:
Aren't the people I cited elected to a national legislature? Do you have any doubt that they would vote to ban "assault rifles" if they thought it would get them votes?
BC
This is probably just Drudge abusing a headline for click-throughs.
Heavy Metal
07-29-12, 18:01
This is probably just Drudge abusing a headline for click-throughs.
The problem is the article leaves out the part where he says rocket launchers may indeed be prtected by the 2nd amendment.....and he did actually say that, my post above was no joke.
Moose-Knuckle
07-29-12, 19:14
The problem is the article leaves out the part where he says rocket launchers may indeed be prtected by the 2nd amendment.....and he did actually say that, my post above was no joke.
Sweet, I need a few cases of the Airtronic MK-777s and their RPG-7s!
platoonDaddy
07-29-12, 19:29
The problem is the article leaves out the part where he says rocket launchers may indeed be prtected by the 2nd amendment.....and he did actually say that, my post above was no joke.
Scroll to 07:00 of the great interview: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/
Add this to your reading list: 3 simple steps Obama can take on gun control. (http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/three-simple-steps-obama-can-take-on-gun-control-20120726)
Major Garrett is a deeply trouble and misinformed douche nozzle. There is NOTHING credible in that "article", NOTHING.
Scroll to 07:00 of the great interview: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/
I saw the actual interview. His statement was an illustration of how a literal interpritation the 2nd Ammendment protects "arms" that can be carried, and that the Heller decision left the door open for future interpretation of what qualifies. The dismissive manner in which Scalia made the rocket launcher statement led me to believe that it was an example of hyperbole. I don't see him or any other justice voting to legalize distructive devices.
Some of you people need to step away from the computer, shut it down and take a breather. Nothing that he said was in anyway different from things he has said in the past.
I believe that Justice Scalia did in fact say that certain firearms can be restricted as could magazines, but the outright ban of items would not be constitutional.
Take the time to actually read and comprehend what is being said.
Stop the presses! "Sun rises in East!!!"
The man said absolutely nothing that has not been well known by all parties for many years.
The interviewer was bound and determined to take something away that could be made into a headline, no matter how inane.
If this is what we get from compulsory schooling, it's time to scrap the existing school systems, return the taxes for them to parents and let them educate kids as they see fit--"choice".
No sense being stupider than we have to be. :blink:
In a perfect world, it would be the People themselves.
No, it wouldn't. That's called a democracy, and if 51% of "the people" are victim disarmament advocates, there go your rights.
In a perfect world, any handheld weapon reasonably usefull for self defense would be legal and protected.
No private nukes, or cannons, or stealth fighters. Not handheld, and not reasonably usefull for self defense.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.