Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

Originally posted by michaelbrux
reply to post by tkwasny

 

if he's gonna play that game.

carried by what?

doesn't really matter...their are 8 other Judges that he'll have to convince of his definition.

good thing for me and my family that he's an old person anyway...so it won't matter how he defines anything.

He said carried by the person meant to bear. He didn't say whatever could be loaded onto a motor vehicle or horse drawn buckboard.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


In your opinion.
right.

regulated to crazy people

reply to post by pistolerooo

I like your thoughts and they remind me of the motto for the State of Virginia (ironically where a lot of people in Government reside); Sic Semper Tyrannis (Thus Unto Tyrants). One has to like the visual of the state flag also.

Its already been well-established that the government has some authority to regulate firearms ownership. This dates back at least as far as US vs Miller in 1939, which upheld the ban on sawed off shotguns. More recently, the USSC's decision in DC vs Heller also mentioned that the government does, in fact, have some limited authority to regulate firearms. In that sense, I don't think this is anything new or to be concerned about.

The ability to limit and regulate ends with the 'common use' principle. If a firearm is in common use for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned. This was part of the basis for striking down DC's handgun laws in DC vs Heller. By that standard, it would also seem nearly impossible to ban so-called 'assault rifles' , given that millions of them are now legally possessed by American citizens.

reply to post by vor78

Heller reaffirmed that 2A was an individual and not a collective right also. They have gone after the assault weapons before and the strategy thus far has been to grandfather existing "assault"(styled) weapons and restrict the new manufacture and the importation of them from overseas. They might even go after "military calibre" ammunition (ie. 5.56 or 7.62 x 51 nato or 7.62 x 39 or x 54 warsaw pact) so you cant shoot anything from your rifle.

reply to post by CosmicCitizen


The interesting thing about Heller is that Scalia wrote that decision, so you can see how he thinks about the subject just from reading it. He actually discusses some of the restrictions that would be considered constitutional, such as banning felons and the mentally ill from owning firearms, as well as bans in public buildings such as schools.

In Heller, he also implies that an ammunition ban would be unconstitutional. If a law renders a weapon in common use for self-defense inoperable or otherwise useless for that purpose, it could not stand. Obviously, a firearm cannot perform its intended function without ammunition, so the implication is that the ammo ban would be unconstitutional.

I think this is a case of Scalia being taken out of context.

Gun controll is kinda like a loose thread. You pull it a little, a little more, more, and the whole sleeve falls off.
It's always a little at a time, just like the Germany.

The SCOTUS will never ban guns from the citizenry. They will, however, rule to register and regulate them in the near future. That is a certainty.

Originally posted 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*

Mine were lost in a tragic boating accident several years ago.

Off the coast of...Nebraska.

/TOA

Originally posted 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.

Well, we'd have to go back to muzzle loaders and flintlocks if we need to stay in what the founding fathers could have "envisioned". The percussion cap revolver would have just scared the begeebers out of them. I think more likely it would have made them drool and wish they had had it during the revolutionary war.

reply to post by tkwasny


well, he's wrong.

the Constitution and the people that wrote it quite obviously meant any arms necessary to the security of a Free State. its written as clear as day.

its no wonder people hate politicians so much, they just never stop with the BS.

but they'll be cured of their insanity.

perhaps the people that want to take away Americans' weapons should have considered the real interpretation of the 2nd Amendment before flooding our streets with Soviet designed and manufactured weapons.

now every American needs an American designed assault weapon to counter the threat.

reply to post by Logarock

The "regulation" part refers to the regulation of groups of men who take up arms. Th

We have a winner Scalia the loser as per the word and the definition of since some people want to play word games(not you).

regulatedpast participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb) Verb: Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.

Everyone knows of the original intent of the second amendment even tho many anti gun crowds feigns the moral high ground.

The intention of the second was to have the people of this country on an equal foot who could stand toe to toe with tyrants, and the despots that those draconian gun laws have made the people of this country to be:

at the mercy of the government,the police,the military, and the criminal.

The second guarantees the right of the people to maintain the rate of weapons or speed being able to defend the constitution, and themselves from foreign, and domestic aggression

reply to post by Valhall

Even hundreds of years before the Revolutionary War Leonardo Da Vinci envisioned war machines that would have been state of the art even at the time of our Civil War. Altho they were not the type that an individual could carry.

I'm getting a bow and taking up Archery. I have always wanted one. I have to look into it and see what kind I need for starting off. But I think having a Bow and Arrows is better than a gun anyway.

It's more natural

I'd sure hate to be the head of the group to try to take guns away from the US citizen.
That would be a very dangerous place to be.
I'm not worried.

Hmmm...

www.abc4.com...

Originally posted by Sly1one

Originally posted 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...

Yes because "locational limitation" regulations would have stopped the Aurora shootings...or any other for that matter...

"locational limitation".....now this sound like something thought out but its not. They have this in NY city.....lots of good it does. And in DC for years and just look at it all.

Originally posted by vor78

The ability to limit and regulate ends with the 'common use' principle. If a firearm is in common use for lawful purposes, it cannot be banned. This was part of the basis for striking down DC's handgun laws in DC vs Heller. By that standard, it would also seem nearly impossible to ban so-called 'assault rifles' , given that millions of them are now legally possessed by American citizens.

edit on 29-7-2012 by vor78 because: (no reason given)

The "common use" idea is in itself unconstitutional in the context of the 2A. The reason the 2a is, is to inform the government that the people have the right to keep and bear due to the overbearing nature of governments on the "common" people. That undue force can be met with force.

"common use" implies a function that finds it justification in its everyday practical use.....like a hammer. The 2A is not about something, an arm, in the context of ANYTHING save for fighting the governement or mobs if the need ever arise. When the 2A was writen it was written in light of the late unpleasantness with the English.......not Tom Jeffersons latest hunting trip!

Originally posted by tkwasny

Originally posted 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.

Scalia said today that the word "bear" meant whatever weapon could be carried. That is a ceiling point.

Man we got to keep an eye on these nuts.

Bear here in the 2A mean USE....i.e. bring to bear on the situation. God help us!

reply to post by skepticconwatcher

Try a crossbow (combination of a bow and a rifle-like platform). I have a Jennings (Bear). It is more like a bow mounted horizontally on the stock than a standard crossbow and uses the longest bolts (22" arrows). I have read reports of deer kills at 90 yards with one.