The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

**Aguila Blanca** · February 7, 2013, 08:42 PM

I partially agree with Levant. And that means I also disagree with Justice Scalia. In Heller Mr. Scalia wrote that the RKBA is subject to "reasonable" regulation. I disagree with this, and the basis is the Bill of Rights itself. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to suggest, even in the most indirect fashion, that the RKBA might be subject to even the most reasonable of regulations. Regulation = infringement, and the operative clause of the 2A is an absolute, complete, total prohibition against infringement (i.e. regulation) of the RKBA.

Conversely, in the 4th Amendment, the Founders demonstrated that they could use the 'R' word when they chose, by protecting us against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Once the law was written that way, it befell the courts to determine what is and what is not "reasonable" vis-vis searches and seizures. So they were familiar with the word, and the concept.

But the Founders did not write that the RKBA shall not be "unreasonably" infringed. They wrote that it SHALL NOT BE infringed ... period.

I also disagree with the notion that the 2A doesn't protect my right to own my very own, personal F-16 equipped with nuclear-armed missiles, but since I can't afford the price of admission even by saving my lunch money for a year, I'm less worried about that one.

February 7, 2013, 08:42 PM	#24
Aguila Blanca Staff Join Date: September 25, 2008 Location: CONUS Posts: 18,459	I partially agree with Levant. And that means I also disagree with Justice Scalia. In Heller Mr. Scalia wrote that the RKBA is subject to "reasonable" regulation. I disagree with this, and the basis is the Bill of Rights itself. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment to suggest, even in the most indirect fashion, that the RKBA might be subject to even the most reasonable of regulations. Regulation = infringement, and the operative clause of the 2A is an absolute, complete, total prohibition against infringement (i.e. regulation) of the RKBA. Conversely, in the 4th Amendment, the Founders demonstrated that they could use the 'R' word when they chose, by protecting us against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. Once the law was written that way, it befell the courts to determine what is and what is not "reasonable" vis-vis searches and seizures. So they were familiar with the word, and the concept. But the Founders did not write that the RKBA shall not be "unreasonably" infringed. They wrote that it SHALL NOT BE infringed ... period. I also disagree with the notion that the 2A doesn't protect my right to own my very own, personal F-16 equipped with nuclear-armed missiles, but since I can't afford the price of admission even by saving my lunch money for a year, I'm less worried about that one.