Defensive Carry banner

Scalia "Open" To Gun Control?

8K views 79 replies 36 participants last post by  scott625 
#1 ·
#2 ·
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.
 
#72 ·
True, they have been interpreted and regulated. And the fact remains that neither should have ever happened. At all.

The Second Amendment is in place and it says what it says specifically so as to ensure the citizens access to the same weapons that the standing Army has. This is so, if the need arises, and I think it will one day, for the citizenry to over throw a government that has become tyrannical, the citizens would be on equal footing with the Army should the Army chose to side with the tyrannical government. (NOT England. We had already defeated England when the US Constitution was ratified. The Founders specifically had our own governement in mind when the Second Amendment was written.)

Rea in the strictest possible way, every citizen should be able to have a full auto M4, or a tank with its ammo, or an Apache Attack Helicopter or a naval war ship if they so choose. Now, some of those may seem absurd. But, the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, means what it says and says what it means. It is written very plainly and quite clearly. Shall not be infringed means, the government has no say in what you own or carry or store in your home. Period.

It's only because we have slowly rolled over and taken it from the government for so long that we feel it's "OK" for there to be "reasonable gun control". All "reasonable gun control" is, is us, letting them infringe on a right that is spelled out in the Constitution. One that they are specifically forbidden from infringing upon in any way, shape or form.

The 2A refers to "arms" a weapon that can be carried in the arms of a human.
Uh....no, not it does not. The word "arms" referred to weapons. All weapons. Not simply ones that could be carried in the arms of a human. I've NEVER heard that assertion before and quite frankly, I am embarrassed for you that you would believe it so. Please read the Federalist Papers. They are a series of essays written by the men who wrote our Constitution where in they explain the meaning and intent of all the parts of the document. No where in them is the assertion you just made mentioned.
 
#4 ·
"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
 
#5 ·
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.
 
#6 ·
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.
 
#7 ·
They'll have us all carrying muskets by the time they're done! :blink:
 
#8 ·
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.
 
#19 ·
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.
I know a couple of Democratics that own guns. Should I make them re-register? ;-)
 
#36 ·
If those in power can control the weapons and the food they control everything. Total power.
"They" already do. Peoples across the world over the past 500 years have had to comply with the "new" way of living, or die/wither for resisting the system. (Example: native populations in the Americas, 1520 on.)

Really...what real purpose do gun laws serve?
To maintain such a system.

In the simplest terms, it's still happening. And the stakes are still the same.
 
#10 ·
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????
 
#13 ·
It not understandable, its crap. The progressive movement is imbedded in every facet of government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DPro.40
#11 ·
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".
 
#12 ·
Forefathers = "I told you we should have been a little more specific..." :018::018::argue::018:
 
  • Like
Reactions: shooterX
#14 ·
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.
 
#15 ·
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...

:popcorn: :pepsi:
 
#17 ·
Well said 10thmtn. That's pretty much what I figure. But hey, if they'll throw in all the others you've listed above, I'm in, that is, if I could afford it. Not the flamethrower though; I've heard that we're not supposed to use those anymore. And I could attach a 3 pt. on my tank to disc up my field and shoot coyotes all at the same time. :bier:
 
#16 ·
A "conservative justice" is not necessarily a "conservative." Often the viewpoints align, however. He's also consistent in his viewpoint, and there's nothing new here.

That's the problems with sound bites in the absence of context.
 
#18 ·
Actually I'd like to have an Apache. Talk about great fun with the coyotes.

So - I guess the 2A protects our right to have our very own thermonuclear device?
I'd probably put the limit on bombs just because of the collateral damage and the "hold my beer and watch this" factor.
The rest of them...nah.

Whats the difference of being responsible with a M1A1 Abrams or a handgun? We have plently of 18,19and 20 somethings driving some of the most powerful weapons platforms the world has ever seen. That dosent seem to be an issue.

Its all about accountability. It they screw up prosecute them.
 
#20 ·
What is this country coming to?

What this country is coming to is a faulty and downright incorrect sense of justice. There's no discernible sense of right and wrong exhibited within several current generations of citizens. Everyone is more interested in making sure they don't appear to be intolerant.
 
#21 ·
Originally Posted by 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...
My problem is not the idea that these items may or may not need some form of regulations. My problem comes when we ignore the Constitution in doing so. Its more how we are doing it than what we are doing that bothers me. The end justifies the means way of changing the Constitution takes both the people and the States out of the equation.
Want to give the Government the power to regulate arms then do it. But do it through the amendment process the way its supposed to be done under law.

Michael
 
#22 ·
"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."

I suspect...wait, I know his knowledge is greater than mine concerning 18th century history but, I would like to see the evidence to back this up. Did they mean flintlocks only, no cannons or blunderbuss.
 
#30 ·
What is this country coming to?
Exactly. Thing is....we should have been worried where it was going some thirty plus years ago and then we wouldn't have to worry about how it's become and where it's going. Too late is the day we actually know what happened, and it's all due to us sitting back and watching when we should have/could have taken action. Adios amigos....via con Dios.
 
#38 ·
So...those of you who think the 2A protects your right to have your own attack helicopter/tank/warship/etc - do you think you have a right to a thermonuclear device?

If not, why? What is the legal distinction between one and the other? Where and how do you draw the line?

I would argue that the 2A protects the right to own (keep) and wield (bear) individual arms common to the individual infantryman of the era. When written, there was little difference between the musket of the Continental Army and that of the various Militia, or those owned by citizens outside of military service. The idea was that individual citizens could band together to form an ersatz militia, with their own privately owned arms, to deal with any threats to liberty.

By and large, crew served weapons were owned by the state (at the local, state, or Federal level) - though there were some exceptions to that. At the time of the writing of the 2A, crew served weapons would primarily include artillery and warships. Privately owned warships were "privateers" when they were useful to the country...and "pirates" when they were a threat. They were always of questionable legality, and were only tolerated (via "letters of marque") when our own pitiful Navy needed their help out of sheer necessity.

There are limits on all the rights spelled out in the Bill of Rights. You do not have the right to offer living human sacrifices to your gods. You do not have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. And you do not have a right to bring a gun with you to visit your buddy in jail. That's all the Justice was saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: shooterX
#39 ·
By and large those larger weapons were limited by the availability of funds, not by statute. The very fact that there are letters of marque and reprisal spelled out in the Constitution tells us that they held a status higher than "questionable legality". The 2A is not the only issue, the very concept of property rights is what is truly being discussed. By endorsing the notion that someone in possession of an instrument that could cause "too much" destruction is unacceptable you endorse the same notion that the Brady Campaign embraces. You are simply drawing the proverbial line in the sand in a different spot, and thus you've sacrificed the basic premise before the debate even begins. A free society does not concern itself with what property you are allowed to have, only that it is not used to destroy the property or persons of your fellow citizens. By and large, the text of the Constitution endorses this concept, however much our legislature has undermined it.
 
#44 ·
The founding fathers did have cannons. And they wrote no restrictions against them. Also, there was no restriction on large amounts of gunpowder or and regulations against owning a Gatling gun 75 years later. The example of a nuke is a little far fetched for an individual weapon considering most nations can't get their hands on one. But weapons of mass destruction are readily available to individuals with a very little knowledge.

I don't see an easy answer to the question in theory. I feel I could argue either side, but as soon as the Government decides what weapons I can have, then I fall firmly on the side of the 2nd Amendment. And yes, it does make me uncomfortable with the individuals that seem to be infesting the nation being armed. But we can't have the freedom only for our self and not for all or it's not freedom but privilege.
 
#68 ·
Yup. The government is really capable of keeping us safe from those nuclear materials. I know I'm sleeping well at night.

Radioactive Material Smuggled Across Border | www.kfoxtv.com

You would think something would've happened by now. There are many areas of the world that are completely lawless, including parts of nuclear-armed Pakistan. It's amazing we haven't gotten nuked yet. Again, whether or not we can have nukes is a red herring argument that is used by those who wish to restrict us by leaping to the most absurd scenarios they can think of to justify something much smaller in scale, like telling you you're not allowed to have a machine gun. The entire debate shows a complete lack of respect and understanding for property rights in general, and a disregard for the concept of negative liberty. The premise behind restrictions of any activity that does not harm others is the opposite of civilization, and should be rejected as such.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top