|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 29, 2012, 10:03 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: April 30, 2012
Posts: 32
|
Scalia guns may be regulated
I believe something lost on folks that want to say the fore fathers never invisioned AR-15's and high cap mags is that the 2nd amendment was meant to balance the technology of the military of the time and the 2nd was meant to give citizens comparable weapons.
As recenlty as last week, I heard Michael Moore and piers Morgan debate this. They were basically saying the 2nd amendment gives us citizens the right to single shot muzzle loaders. Now Scalia is saying something similar: http://www.nationaljournal.com/scali...lated-20120729 Last edited by Mr2005; July 29, 2012 at 10:16 AM. |
July 29, 2012, 10:07 AM | #2 |
Junior member
Join Date: January 24, 2010
Location: South West Riverside County California
Posts: 2,763
|
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
One of my favorite people and if he is saying this I'm concerned. Article from the National Journal dated 7-29-12:
"As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace." When I saw the headline, I assumed he was warning us about other justices, or legislative bodies,or agencies, or the executve branch. Say it ain't so. |
July 29, 2012, 11:18 AM | #3 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
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 |
July 29, 2012, 11:21 AM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2007
Location: South Western OK
Posts: 3,112
|
“They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace."
This is essentially what SCOTUS said in Heller. Heller was not a resounding affirmation of our Second Amendment rights. Heller is probably the best we will get. See III pages 54-55. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2012, 12:58 PM | #5 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 8, 2000
Location: SLC,Utah
Posts: 2,704
|
Quote:
|
|
July 29, 2012, 01:08 PM | #6 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 25, 2008
Location: Austin, CO
Posts: 19,578
|
I don't see anything particularly troubling in there.
Guns may be regulated. That is a fact and should be obvious. There is not and should not be completely unrestricted access to all manner of "guns". I do believe that law-abiding citizens should have access to a vast array of powerful and completely unneccesary weapons. However, those weapons are and should be "regulated". Scalia simply says that guns are and should be regulated. He's right.
__________________
Nobody plans to screw up their lives... ...they just don't plan not to. -Andy Stanley |
July 29, 2012, 01:40 PM | #7 |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Yawn! There's nothing new here.
Yes, guns may be regulated. Indeed it's well settled law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited governmental regulation. Of course any such regulation can be challenged, and whatever governmental authority seeks to impose the regulation can have its day in court and the opportunity to make its case that the regulation satisfies the applicable legal standards for the impairment of a constitutionally protected right. It's also historically true that the keeping and bearing of arms was subject to some regulation before, at the time of, and after the adoption of the Second Amendment. For an interesting discussion of early gun control, see Adam Winkler's Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America (W. W. Norton & Company, 2011).
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
July 29, 2012, 03:18 PM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Location: St. Louis, MO area
Posts: 4,040
|
It's also important to note that pre-Heller, guns could not only be regulated, but whole categories (and potentially even all firearms) banned as far as private ownership goes. That was the situation... had Heller gone the other way, it would still be the case. The ONLY thing preventing that kind of complete ban before that decision was the action of people opposing such measures at all levels of government.
Post-Heller, we find that outright bans (at least the most draconian ones) are off the table, but that still leaves a lot of room. Registration is seemingly not prohibited, and the nature of other prohibitions might also be in question (as Scalia seems to say). This is no surprise, Heller was more of a ceiling to what the anti-gun forces might pull off, but we still don't know just how high that is. Remember- keep up the work, and they can't get the bans/regulations passed, and it's a moot point. Just because something might be constitutionally allowed in the eyes of SCOTUS doesn't mean it happens- it has to be passed through two houses of Congress and then signed into law, and even then it can still be repealed/sunset. |
July 29, 2012, 06:20 PM | #9 |
Staff
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Posts: 3,355
|
The article mentions "frightening weapons", but it's not in quotes. If Scalia actually used those words, I am frightened. Does Scalia believe that some person's opinion of how "frightening" a gun is determines whether or not it can be illegal to carry safely and responsibly?
I am more frightened by knives than by guns. I suppose knife carry should be banned?
__________________
“The egg hatched...” “...the egg hatched... and a hundred baby spiders came out...” (blade runner) “Who are you?” “A friend. I'm here to prevent you from making a mistake.” “You have no idea what I'm doing here, friend.” “In specific terms, no, but I swore an oath to protect the world...” (continuum) “It's a goal you won't understand until later. Your job is to make sure he doesn't achieve the goal.” (bsg) |
July 29, 2012, 06:43 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 9,142
|
Any gun pointed in my direction is frightening. I imagine there's some interpretation going on in the use of that word.
|
July 29, 2012, 06:48 PM | #11 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Scalia was interviewed by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday and was asked about gun restrictions. He said in part:
Quote:
Last edited by JN01; July 29, 2012 at 07:47 PM. |
|
July 29, 2012, 06:58 PM | #12 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
July 29, 2012, 07:28 PM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 20,064
|
Chris Wallace - Matthews is on MSNBC?
__________________
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens |
July 29, 2012, 07:46 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: E Tennessee
Posts: 828
|
You're right, I meant Wallace. Post corrected.
|
July 29, 2012, 08:07 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 10, 2011
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 647
|
Same guy, different schtick for different networks.
|
July 29, 2012, 08:52 PM | #16 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
Isn't it a little odd for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to be out giving interviews and discussing the meaning of various rulings?
I don't remember other justices doing this sort of thing. |
July 29, 2012, 09:03 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 2, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 490
|
Probably my first post in this section even though I read most threads and a lot of them several times.
I watched the interview this morining and he said some things that were uncomfortable for gun owners. Maybe that was his intent, maybe we shouldn't be comfortable. The SCOTUS only rules on laws passed, maybe that was his message about how we should vote for our representatives on guns as well as many other issues (I hate the word "issues" but that is the only word that fits at this time for me). Also maybe his real intent was to sell his book. May have succedded with me as I am interested in the way the SCOTUS works, maybe this would shed some light on that. I also heard a man that refused to be put into a box, If I was a Supreme Court Justice I wouldn't allow anyone to put me in a box either. Have a great day! James
__________________
“Government does few things well but it does them at great expense” Cal Thomas “When Government Can’t Be Trusted” 6/11/2013 When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedoms because that is according to my principles. Frank Herbert "Children of Dune" Last edited by Tom Servo; July 29, 2012 at 09:19 PM. Reason: I hope "SCROTUS" was just a typo... |
July 29, 2012, 09:20 PM | #18 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
July 29, 2012, 09:24 PM | #19 | ||
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
Quote:
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. |
||
July 29, 2012, 09:58 PM | #20 | |
Staff
Join Date: November 23, 2005
Location: California - San Francisco
Posts: 9,471
|
Quote:
But the likelihood of anything like that actually coming to pass in the real world is vanishingly small.
__________________
"It is long been a principle of ours that one is no more armed because he has possession of a firearm than he is a musician because he owns a piano. There is no point in having a gun if you are not capable of using it skillfully." -- Jeff Cooper |
|
July 29, 2012, 11:06 PM | #21 |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,460
|
I understand the reality, but my naive world view is that if we allow the people who interpret the laws to forget what the law actually says and originally meant, then we're contributing to the construction of the house of cards. I certainly can't force a Supreme Court justice to vote according to my perception of what the Constitution says, and it's beyond unlikely that I'll be nominated as a justice, so the best I can do is try to hold their feet to the fire and encourage others to do the same. We need to keep reminding them that we are out here and that we CAN read.
If we collectively stop advocating for what the 2nd Amendment really says and really meant at the time it was written, then we may as well snuggle up with the anti-gun advocates and admit that the Constitution is a "living document," to be interpreted according to the whims of the moment rather than according to its original intent. |
July 29, 2012, 11:48 PM | #22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 24, 2005
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 2,903
|
Supreme Court Justices do not miraculously know everything about every possible topic and Scalia does not know everything about guns and the original meaning of the Second Amendment.
To a large degree, Supreme Court Justices use information from prior cases and decisions and the briefs submitted for particular cases. Scalia and the other Justices have a good deal of information that was critical to the questions posed by Heller and McDonald. But the questions posed in those cases did not cover the totality of Second Amendment history or meaning. As other case come before the Court, the Justices will get additional information to help them decide the specific questions of those cases. The Second Amendment is far from fully defined in the judicial system. |
July 29, 2012, 11:49 PM | #23 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 4, 1999
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 1,889
|
I watched the interview, and I am not surprised or disappointed. I was never convinced that the 2nd or any Amendment is without some restrictions. Freedom of speech is not unrestricted nor should it be, and the same goes for the 2nd.
There are people I do not believe should own or even have access to firearms, and some firearms that the average citizen should not have unrestricted access to. I am thinking mostly about full auto and rocket launcher type weapons. Restrictions are required regarding the access and ownership to such weapons. I do not think the mentally ill should have unrestricted rights re weapons, and agree with age restrictions. There is a different mind-set among the youth than 50 years ago. So overall I expected Justice Scalia to say what he did, and am not disappointed. Jerry
__________________
Ecclesiastes 12:13 ¶Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14 For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. |
July 30, 2012, 12:11 AM | #24 | |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Nothing that Scalia said in this interview was inconsistent with what he wrote in Heller.
Quote:
If anyone had bothered to look beyond the sound bytes, you would have seen that this was one of many stops to hawk his new book. |
|
July 30, 2012, 01:25 AM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 18, 2012
Posts: 389
|
^ Yep
He gets frustrated at one point and says "Are we going to talk about my book?" |
|
|