Given that Scalia is considered to be, and considers himself to be, an "originalist," I find this to be extremely disappointing. Supposedly, Mr. Scalia looks at the original text of the Constitution and the context of the 18th century in interpreting the Constitution.
If that's the case ... how can he ignore the statements of the people who WROTE and voted in the Constitution, and the Bill or Rights? People such as Tench Coxe:
"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 have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier
, are the birth-right 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."
In other words, when the Founders wrote that the RKBA "shall not be infringed," they meant it. They did NOT write that the RKBA shall not be "unreasonably" infringed ... they wrote a blanket, no exceptions prohibition. If Antonin Scalia doesn't get this, who CAN we trust? It should be as obvious as the nose on your face. The Founders used the word "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment, so they were obviously aware of the word and conversant with its meaning. If they had intended for the RKBA to be subject to "reasonable" infringement (regulations), isn't it reasonable
to suggest that they would have said so?
How does one reconcile "the unlimited power of the sword" [arms, in other words] in the hands of the People with any suggestion that this right may be regulated? If it can be regulated, it is not "unlimited."
Very interesting read about Tench Coxe: http://www.davekopel.com/2A/LawRev/hk-coxe.htm