View Single Post
Old July 29, 2012, 09:24 PM   #19
Aguila Blanca
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 6,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by JN01
Scalia was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday and was asked about gun restrictions. He said in part:
Quote:
We'll see. I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and bear. So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be -- it will have to be decided.
So Mr. Scalia is saying that we should NOT be allowed to own cannons and rockets and tanks and howitzers? How does this reconcile with the practice at the time of the Revolution that the wealthy members of the local militia owned the unit's cannon? In fact, I believe in some units it was the local laird who owned the cannon who got to be the commander.

And the notion that the second Amendment doesn't apply to any weapon we can't carry on our person also doesn't square with Tench Coxe's well-known treatise about "all the terrible implements of war" being the birthright of the American.

For once, i must respectfully disagree with Frank Ettin. Frank is an attorney, and he approaches this from the perspective of the attorney: he looks at precedent. The problem with precedent is that it can be wrong. I fully understand that precedent tells us civil rights have historically been subject to "reasonable" regulation. As a layman who grew up in the family of a professor of law, speaking English as my native language, I come back to the question of HOW the idea of any regulation whatsoever can be reconciled with the clear and unambiguous statement in the 2nd Amendment that the RKBA "shall not be infringed." It does NOT say "shall not be unreasonably infringed." It is a blanket prohibition -- and a regulation IS an infringement.

The Founders knew the word "unreasonable." They used it in the 4th Amendment. That alone should tell us that IF they had intended to allow the RKBA to be subject to "reasonable" regulation, they would have written the 2nd Amendment to provide that the RKBA "shall not be unreasonably infringed." But ... they did NOT write that.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04634 seconds with 7 queries