Justice Scalia: Guns May Be Regulated

[Hobbes]

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.

"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.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."
As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18[SUP]th[/SUP]-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729


I bout fell out of my chair when I saw his interview with Chris Wallace this morning.

 

[bulbboy]

moved

 

[Lurkerinthewoods]

Just another "Constitutional Scholar" willing to piss on the Constitution and interpret it to fit their belief. I honestly feel we have seen the balance change in the United States, and I doubt it will ever be the same again. If the upcoming elections maintain the current balance of power, we're screwed.

 

[ignerntbend]

Just another "Constitutional Scholar" willing to piss on the Constitution and interpret it to fit their belief. I honestly feel we have seen the balance change in the United States, and I doubt it will ever be the same again. If the upcoming elections maintain the current balance of power, we're screwed.

That's Scalia you're talking about. You think Romney would appoint justices more "conservative" than Scalia?

 

[Popjim]

Hopefully!

 

[dlbleak]

That's Scalia you're talking about. You think Romney would appoint justices more "conservative" than Scalia?

no,i think obama will appoint someone more liberal than kagan if given the chance. i think that is a rational fear most conservatives have.

 

[Hobbes]

Perhaps Scalia's comments are not as discouraging as they seem at first glance.

He also said:
“We’ll see,” Scalia replied. “Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that can not be carried. It’s to ‘keep and bear’ so it doesn’t apply to cannons.”
“But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to — it’s will have to be decided,” he added.

Theoretically, stinger missiles could be covered under the 2A so you know, we've got that going for us.

 

[Lurker66]

That's Scalia you're talking about. You think Romney would appoint justices more "conservative" than Scalia?

This i so agree with.

 

[abajaj11]

Well, registered democrat Chris Wallace and other Fox news liberals may crow for a while that they got Justice Scalia to admit that "reasonable gun controls" are OK. However, I think they are wrong.

Here is why.
Scalia is a very smart man. If it were not for scalia, our RKBA would not be an individual right. Look at heller v/s DC, and read the text of the majority opinion. It was written by Scalia. In that opinion, he makes a great case for why service rifles in the military are fine for civilians.

In the Chris wallace interview today, Scalia's words on how 2A does not cover fearsome weapons directly addresses the argument made by leftists that " is it legal to own a tank? or a grenade launcher?...so then why is it legal to own an assault rifle". Of course, anyone with common sense knows the logical end to this leftist/fascist argument is: it is not legal to own ANY lethal weapons. Scalia is purposely bordering 2A to rule these arguments out.

When liberal democrat Chris Wallace asks him if it is OK to have guns that can shoot 100 rounds a minute (whatever that means), Scalia, instead of refuting it, says "we'll see". Scalia does not want to reveal his hand to a journalist like Wallace. Instead, he has to appear to be open minded, even though I am convinced in his mind, Scalia is quite sure that the current laws are perfectly adequate and we do not need any more restrictions.

However, he has to keep folks like Anthony Kennedy and now Chief Justice Roberts, who are both swing votes, in line. You do not keep folks like this in line by aggressively attacking liberals, but by being open minded and convincing them about your point of view. That is how he managed to get the 5-4 win in heller vs. DC, a VERY important win, without which there would be no individual RKBA today.

Scalia is fighting for our rights to be recognized in a different arena than an Internet Forum. He is fighting in the Supreme Court.

He is one of my heroes where RKBA is concerned.

I wish Romney would appoint folks like him. that would be great!

 

[pktrkt]

no,i think obama will appoint someone more liberal than kagan if given the chance. i think that is a rational fear most conservatives have.

This is my darkest fear concerning the current candidates. Without a doubt obama's appointments would be very, very liberal. Romney, while not my choice, appointments would be more conservative. Do I have proof? No, but really think about it could it be any worse than the liberal thinking fellow we have currently in the white house? I say this election will determine more than just current problems but future problems concerning the SCOTUS.