Scalia "Open" To Gun Control?

[Hamltnblue]

Disturbing news coming from a so called conservative justice.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[suntzu]

Disturbing news coming from a so called conservative justice.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

Read your history. What he says is true. You can debate all day long about what infringed means but when you get down to it guns, how they are carried, and interpreted by SCOTUS and Federal Courts has been going on for over 200 years. I am not agreeing that guns and how they carried should be interpreted, just that the judge is correct in his statement.

[Burns]

including menacing hand-held weapons.

Oh those darn menacing weapons!

[mlr1m]

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

Does anyone know what these early Federal restrictions were? As for the early history of the local limitations I believe that they were free to create laws they felt were necessary. At that time it was thought that the Constitution was a limit on Federal powers not the individual States. In my opinion the States at that time were free to regulate arms while the Federal Government was expressly denied that power.

Michael

[HotGuns]

Regulations are only for people that obey them same as any law.

For any Judge,Lawyer,Politician, LEO, Minister, whoever to think that any law prevents anything is a flawed premise and an inconsistent thought process.
That mind set has allowed over 20 thousand laws... all of them in the name of regulation to be instituted and none of them are worth the paper that they are written on.

Two Hundred years ago, any free man could own any weapon that they saw fit...up to and including artillery pieces. Any one care to guess how many cannons were used in a crime? Not excluding killing tyrants or their soldiers of course.
Wanted to use an assault weapon back in the day? Go get a .69 Caliber flintlock at the local gun shop. You could own the same weapon as the Army. Want a pointy bayonet to stick on the end of it? Go take a days wages and get one.

Fact of the matter is, the Revolutionary War was one that saw citizen/soldiers fielding better weapons than either military had. It is well documented where civilian troops used hunting rifles that were more accurate at a longer range to great effect..actually giving them the upper hand. Many a British Officer wrote home to tell his family that these American Rebels were cheating and not fighting like honorable men.

Really...what real purpose do gun laws serve?

I've been asking this question for years and not one time got a satisfactory justification from someone that thinks like a free man. Liberals, touchy feely types,fence sitters, those that are confused and even those that wear the black robs that puff their chests out when they speak always use the same old tired arguments that they have been spoon fed since they went to school. Its the same old crap rehashed over and over and over.

[peckman28]

Regulations are only for people that obey them same as any law.

For any Judge,Lawyer,Politician, LEO, Minister, whoever to think that any law prevents anything is a flawed premise and an inconsistent thought process.
That mind set has allowed over 20 thousand laws all of them in the name of regulation to be instituted and none of them are worth the paper that they are written on.

Two Hundred years ago, any free man could own any weapon that they saw fit...up to and including artillery pieces. Any one care to guess how many cannons were used in a crime? Not excluding killing tyrants or their soldiers of course.
Wanted to use an assault weapon back in the day? Go get a .60 Caliber flintlock at the local gun shop. You could own the same weapon as the Army. Want a pointy bayonet to stick on the end of it? Go take a days wages and get one.

Fact of the matter is, the Revolutionary War was one that saw citizen/soldiers fielding better weapons than either military had. It is well documented where civilian troops used hunting rifles that were more accurate at a longer range to great effect..actually giving them the upper hand. Many a British Officer wrote home to tell his family that these American Rebels were cheating and not fighting like honorable men.

Really...what real purpose do gun laws serve?

I've been asking this question for years and not one time got a satisfactory justification from someone that thinks like a free man. Liberals, touchy feely types and fence sitters and those that are confused and even those that wear the black robs that puff their chests out when they speak always use the same old tired arguments that they have been spoon fed since they went to school. Its the same old crap rehashed over and over and over.

I couldn't agree more. It's long past time for us to get back to the real purpose of having a government at all, and confine it to enforcing basic Natural Law. If what you're doing does not directly harm another person, or damage their property, then it's no one else's business. Period. If I own the Arnold M-16 with the grenade launcher from Predator, that doesn't hurt anyone, and no one has any right to tell me I can't have it. If I turn it on my neighbors, only then does it become anyone else's business. Implementing this basic concept throughout the country would save us a massive amount of wealth, time, and move us to a position of unparalleled liberty.

[Hiram25]

They'll have us all carrying muskets by the time they're done!

[Rollo]

Disturbing news coming from a so called conservative justice.

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - John Aloysius Farrell - NationalJournal.com

And THAT ladies and gentleman is where the vast majority of pro gun folks make the mistake that I am convinced will be the downfall of us all. You have equated being conservative with being pro gun. I would venture to guess that you probably also equate being liberal with being anti gun. There is no line to draw. Guns are not a republican or democratic or conservative or liberal issue. If you let yourself believe that they are then your doing EXACTLY what the Brady campaign wants you to. Your convincing all of those non anti gun democrats that to be a democrat you also have to be anti gun. Please, don't help the Brady campaign.

[mlr1m]

Really...what real purpose do gun laws serve?

If those in power can control the weapons and the food they control everything. Total power.

Michael

[Sig35seven]

If Obama made this statement people would be total freaking out. All the "see I told you so's" would be out in force with their heads spinning around like the Exorcist. A conservative Judge says it and it seems logical and somehow understandable????

[HotGuns]

A conservative Judge says it and it seems logical and somehow understandable????

There is nothing "understandable" about it.

It's the "friends" of this country that do more damage to gun ownership by claiming to be conservative. In reality, none of them are "conservative" by technical terms.

At least Obama is a known enemy of gun ownership and makes no bones about it. As far as I am concerned, he isn't as dangerous as most of our so called "friends".

[mprp]

Forefathers = "I told you we should have been a little more specific..."

[Harryball]

If Obama made this statement people would be total freaking out. All the "see I told you so's" would be out in force with their heads spinning around like the Exorcist. A conservative Judge says it and it seems logical and somehow understandable????

It not understandable, its crap. The progressive movement is imbedded in every facet of government.

[Spirit51]

I saw this on Fox News Sunday. I think he is telling us that we have to be darn careful about who we elect to appoint Supreme Court Judges. He is right.

The Party of Lawyers know all the tricks and loop holes and usually command a large liberal Judicial block who are not afraid to set law from the bench. Supreme Court is the only thing that keeps them in check....so far. Is there anything that is set in stone?? There always seems to be some liberal/progressive snot with a rock hammer to chip away at it. To reshape it to fit their fantasy land ideal and not the working reality.

This was a huge "Beware!" sign from Justice Scalia IMO.

[10thmtn]

So - I guess the 2A protects our right to have our very own thermonuclear device?

How about your own private warship? Attack helicopter? Fighter/bomber?

How about a tank with functional weaponry? Flamethrower? Anti-tank missile launcher?

Point is that...YES indeed...there are limits on the 2A. Just like there are limits on the 1A (libel, slander, child porn, etc).

My personal opinion is this - citizens should be able to have weapons that are equivalent to the basic infantry standard issue weapon. That gets you to the "militia" part of the wording of the 2A.

I'll go put my Nomex on. This should get interesting...