View Single Post
Old July 29, 2012, 06:58 PM   #12
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2005
Location: SW Ohio
Posts: 659
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?
Scalia said:
What limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are, because there were some that were acknowledged at the time. For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was I believe a misdemeanor.
He was talking about the fact that there were some arms restrictions at the time of the nations founding. The offense he referred to above seems to be more of a prohibition on behavior rather than the weapon itself- similar to the modern charge of brandishing.
JN01 is offline  
Page generated in 0.04249 seconds with 7 queries