Scalia: Guns May be Regulated , page 1

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 9 times

Topic started on 29-7-2012 @ 10:32 AM by sad_eyed_lady

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.

www.nationaljournal.com...

The Colorado shooting did what the Fast and Furious could not. It opened the door to restriction of gun control rights.

I do not think conservative Scalia is threatening is this article, but rather warning people this will be coming down the pike.

Scalia also had some strong thing to say about the Affordable Care Act.

"You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

Time for the gun rights people to be vociferous on their beliefs.

I checked the ATS search before making this post.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 10:35 AM by EvilSadamClone

While there are some grand weaknesses to the Constitution, there is also one other grand weakness:

It does NOT prevent regulation and over regulation.

The liberals have found that out, and that's how they're going to get firearms out of the public is by tacking on so many regulations that they will be out of reach of the people.

These now sin taxes are just the start.

edit on 29-7-2012 by EvilSadamClone because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 10:42 AM by sad_eyed_lady

Scalia claims their are some limitations as to the nature of the arms that "could be borne", but their is no way they could have envisioned assault rifles when the Second Amendment was written.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 10:45 AM by antonia

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

I do not think conservative Scalia is threatening is this article, but rather warning people this will be coming down the pike.

en.wikipedia.org...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

A warning? No, it's common sense. The third word is "regulated", therefore the federal government has that right. It's plain as day if you can read. If you don't like it then the wording needs to be changed.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:03 AM by Wrabbit2000

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

By that logic in saying technological advances chance something here, one could say the 1st amendment could never have envisioned the Internet for speech or Electronic amplification of the voice for the public square.

Dangerous roads that all leads to... Particularly when one considers, the amplification part HAS been cited as the basis to silence Occupy. I don't have to like 'em to admit they got screwed, Constitutionally..and the "Mic Check" was born entirely out of need after amplification was prohibited, pretty much everywhere they went.

One must be careful about restricting rights. As we've watched too many times now, restriction of one leads to more and they never know when to quit. Never. I invite them to leave my God given rights alone, not meddle more in them. The 2nd being first and foremost as the right which secures all others.

edit on 29-7-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:05 AM by CosmicCitizen

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

I dont believe it was legal to carry (at least not without a permit) a gun into a Colorado theatre. Even if they had a sign (no exception even for CCW holders) and a metal detector at the theatre entrance it still would not have prevented the massacre. Even if they outlawed cell phones so that the accomplice could not have received the call to open the door how would you enforce it and even if you could he could have opened the door without a phone call at a predetermined time. WHAT WE NEED IS MENTAL HEALTH (PERSONS) CONTROL AND CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT (INCLUDING SHADOW GOVERNMENT) TO ELIMINATE FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ON OUR OWN PEOPLE. THE LAST TWO ELEMENTS WOULD COVER ALL BASES HERE (OVERT AND COVERT CAUSES).

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:09 AM by beezzer

I wonder how many guns are going to be reported lost or stolen in the coming years?

Sadly, my are now lost. Must have been lost due to a move.

*pity*

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:10 AM by benrl

YouTube Link

Every time they hint at gun control gun sales jump nation wide... Clearly the question needs to be is it the will of the people in the first place.

besides they must have a different definition of what infringed means..

And the right to militia duties per state was clearly separate from the individuals right to Bare arms, so the regulate part is for the Militia, not the Arms part.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:11 AM by CosmicCitizen

reply to post by beezzer

I am going to predict record number of lost or stolen firearms on the day after a law, treaty or executive order requires firearms to be registered nationally or internationally.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:12 AM by michaelbrux

nothing to worry about because no one in Congress is going to engage in this discussion right now.

if the White House drafts legislation, Congress would wipe its ass with it, considering that they don't like Obama.

The Judges don't write laws...so its going to have to wait until Congress decides to discuss the issue.

the only thing clear to me is that the debate about gun control over the short and intermediate term is a dead issue.

i'd give it about 10-15 years.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:13 AM by Logarock

The "regulation" part refers to the regulation of groups of men who take up arms. They must not be an angry mob but organized. These organizations are formed of men who draw thier weapons from thier own home thus the right to "keep".

The right to keep cannot be regulated. Scalia needs to go back to school. And "keep" also infers ability and weapons equal to combat personal weapon that would be used against them.

As far as invisioning "assult wepons"......stupid weak argument.... considering the nature of weapons at the disposal of the government. You see it was the evolution of the modern firearm at that time that alowed the americans to go toe to toe with the english. State of the art personal combat weapons are in keeping with the spirit of the 2nd......as are modern communication is to the right to free speech as we am now demonstrating.

Also, any "regulation" that interfears with the right to bear (in the context of the 2nd anyway) is on its face unconstitutional. See thats the whole point of the 2nd.......the right to bear. What they want in the end is a bunch of pitchfork and torch peasants taking on the modern police state.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:18 AM by lonegurkha

Originally posted by antonia

Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady

I do not think conservative Scalia is threatening is this article, but rather warning people this will be coming down the pike.

en.wikipedia.org...

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

A warning? No, it's common sense. The third word is "regulated", therefore the federal government has that right. It's plain as day if you can read. If you don't like it then the wording needs to be changed.

The word regulated refers to a militia not to the citizens. The important passage here is Shall not be infringed. This removes the right of the government to regulate.

edit on 7/29/2012 by lonegurkha because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:19 AM by antonia

Originally posted by michaelbrux
nothing to worry about because no one in Congress is going to engage in this discussion right now.

if the White House drafts legislation, Congress would wipe its ass with it, considering that they don't like Obama.

The Judges don't write laws...so its going to have to wait until Congress decides to discuss the issue.

the only thing clear to me is that the debate about gun control over the short and intermediate term is a dead issue.

i'd give it about 10-15 years.

This is also my general opinion as well. There is little point in worrying about it as Obama can't really do anything about Guns. The issues is one Democrats avoid like the plague because it just leads to them getting creamed on Fox.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:22 AM by Logarock

Originally posted by CosmicCitizen
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

I dont believe it was legal to carry (at least not without a permit) a gun into a Colorado theatre. Even if they had a sign (no exception even for CCW holders) and a metal detector at the theatre entrance it still would not have prevented the massacre. Even if they outlawed cell phones so that the accomplice could not have received the call to open the door how would you enforce it and even if you could he could have opened the door without a phone call at a predetermined time. WHAT WE NEED IS MENTAL HEALTH (PERSONS) CONTROL AND CONTROL OF THE GOVERNMENT (INCLUDING SHADOW GOVERNMENT) TO ELIMINATE FALSE FLAG ATTACKS ON OUR OWN PEOPLE. THE LAST TWO ELEMENTS WOULD COVER ALL BASES HERE (OVERT AND COVERT CAUSES).

Yes yes. And considering that cops cant be everywhere it is then encombant on the people to protect themselves from these public outbursts with carry permits.......as has been shown effective time and again.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:22 AM by michaelbrux

Furthermore, the right to Keep and Bear Arms is not limited to guns and/or small arms.

the Constitution probably never envisioned the existence of Nuclear Powered Subs and Aircraft Carriers or Ballistic Missiles but they are arms and the people have the right to bear them.

the military is under civilian control anyway and anyone trying to change that isn't going to have a very good career in American politics.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:23 AM by marg6043

reply to post by sad_eyed_lady

Scalia is supreme justice member he needs to stay out of politics, but as usual the supreme court has failed us, now as the health care and the mandatory aka soon to be tax clause he is right is a pig will be a pig and as a pig pork will written all over it.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:26 AM by sad_eyed_lady

The lawsuit that the SCOTUS might hear would probably originate from pro-gun control groups not Congress IMHO.

You just never know which branch of the government is going to stick it to you, Scalia is telling us it could be the SCOTUS,

As someone who saw their First Amendment right (freedom to practice religion) tossed by ACA, it can happen.

We might be left with tazers or pepper spray.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:27 AM by antonia

reply to post by lonegurkha

Ok, so why can't I buy a nuclear weapon? You can't infringe on my right to arm myself right?

As for the militia, you seem to forget there are two views on that. Some proclaim militia refers to every citizen. Either way, as long as that word exists in the amendment you are going to have issues. Remove the word if you wish to remove those issues.

edit on 29-7-2012 by antonia because: opps

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:31 AM by projectvxn

reply to post by antonia

A warning? No, it's common sense. The third word is "regulated", therefore the federal government has that right. It's plain as day if you can read. If you don't like it then the wording needs to be changed.

That's a hell of a stretch. Just because the third word is 'regulated' does not mean that it's meaning is singular and that it is ok to take it out of context. A well regulated militia is a militia that has order, a command structure, adequate weaponry, and a sound training doctrine. As a matter of fact this was the original meaning of the word 'regulate' in those days, i.e. to bring into conformity. Today's definition is to impose restriction. The context does not support the latter, even by today's definition.

It is not a good idea to remove ONE WORD and attach a meaning to it arbitrarily and say "this is the governments right". That is dishonest intellectually. Secondly the government doesn't have rights. It has powers. Powers outlined in the constitution. Anything beyond those powers is expressly given to the states and to the people respectively.

reply posted on 29-7-2012 @ 11:32 AM by Logarock

reply to post by michaelbrux

Yes that is "arms" plural. As far as subs and rockets.......the people are currently outmatched. Assult rifles are near primitive anyway when one considers the basic battlfield weapons an out of control police state could bring to bear.....which is what the 2nd is all about.

A few years ago the pres of the RNC said the second was about hunting and the like......what an idot and running the RNC at that.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^