Wait. WHAT?! Scalia goes off the deep end?

[hacksawfg]

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated - Yahoo! News

Wow. Just wow.

 

[turnandshoot4]

You expected any less?

 

[turnandshoot4]

I really like that he looks at the 18th century.

WE ARE GOING TO GET MACHINE GUNS!

Because in the 18th century, they had what the military had. Unlike what we have now.

 

[hookedonjeep]

amazing how fast altzheimers sets in..... he is obviously confused. Setting the laws of the land based on percieved 18th century history? What was wrong with working within the confines of the Constitution?

 

[turnandshoot4]

But wait, we have to elect conservative judges. Because they will fight for gun rights.

Even in the Heller case they didn't rule well enough. The hoops that Chicago and D.C. make gun owners jump through are horrible.

 

[hooky]

So Roberts isn't the only one that reads the NYT to see how he's being viewed by everyone.

 

[IndyDave1776]

This isn't the first time Scalia has gone off the rails. He expressed open contempt for the idea that the Tenth Amendment means that anything not expressly delegated to the federal government in the Constitution is off limits to the federal government, which is what the amendment plainly says.

 

[Hohn]

Scalia is right. The laws under which the Founders lived allowed citizens to own firearms.

Cannons? Nope.

Battleships? Nada.


If you want to rake over the coals an accomplished and brilliant SCOTUS justice like Scalia, you best get to reading and make your cases. The guy has forgotten far more than most of us will ever know.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Scalia is right. The laws under which the Founders lived allowed citizens to own firearms.

Cannons? Nope.

Battleships? Nada.


If you want to rake over the coals an accomplished and brilliant SCOTUS justice like Scalia, you best get to reading and make your cases. The guy has forgotten far more than most of us will ever know.

Then please explain to me how these things were in private ownership during the revolution, the war of 1812, and the Civil War if they were prohibited. Not only were they widely available in land form, but commissioning privateers was commonplace. What about the tons of privately owned gatlings, cannons, and munitions in circulation in the early 20th century? I wish I could remember the name of that surplus weapons dealer with the building on an island that blew up about a century ago. It was a really good read.

 

[Lex Concord]

Then please explain to me how these things were in private ownership during the revolution, the war of 1812, and the Civil War if they were prohibited. Not only were they widely available in land form, but commissioning privateers was commonplace. What about the tons of privately owned gatlings, cannons, and munitions in circulation in the early 20th century? I wish I could remember the name of that surplus weapons dealer with the building on an island that blew up about a century ago. It was a really good read.

Hey, easy on the facts there, pal. They don't fit the narrative.

 

[NYFelon]

Then please explain to me how these things were in private ownership during the revolution, the war of 1812, and the Civil War if they were prohibited. Not only were they widely available in land form, but commissioning privateers was commonplace. What about the tons of privately owned gatlings, cannons, and munitions in circulation in the early 20th century? I wish I could remember the name of that surplus weapons dealer with the building on an island that blew up about a century ago. It was a really good read.

Bannerman's Arsenal?

 

[CarmelHP]

Then please explain to me how these things were in private ownership during the revolution, the war of 1812, and the Civil War if they were prohibited. Not only were they widely available in land form, but commissioning privateers was commonplace. What about the tons of privately owned gatlings, cannons, and munitions in circulation in the early 20th century? I wish I could remember the name of that surplus weapons dealer with the building on an island that blew up about a century ago. It was a really good read.

Bannerman Island.

This is really overblown. I watched the interview. He said the text of the Amendment limits protection to weapons that can be borne (keep and bear) but that there are missiles that can be borne so what can and cannot and to what extant something can be regulated has to be decided carefully in future cases. An example he gave of laws at the time of the Founders was "affrighting," bearing an arm in such as way as to cause terror and similar laws would have to be carefully tested for Constitutionality. He didn't give a blanket statement, though pushed by the host to do so, that any and all regulation would be Constitutional. He may have to rule on this in the future and, as a judge, obviously does not want to state a bias.

 

[M1 carbine dad]

Plus, I'd rather he look at 18th Century American law and not any century International law for his decision making process.

 

[rockhopper46038]

I have to get a moment to read (or listen) to exactly what he said, but from the snippet I got thus far I'm not ready to hang Scalia yet. What I thought I read was that his interpretation of the Constitution makes right to bear small arms ("bearable" arms) sacrosanct, and the Constitutionality of anti-air missiles weapons (as an example) has not yet been put to the question.

I did NOT get that he believes other sorts of arms are unconstitutional nor constitutional for individuals to own; just that the question remains to be brought. Not the opinion I like to hear expressed, but not an open door to gun control, either.

My only access to news has been sporadic cell phone coverage though, so U reserve the right to lambaste Scalia wholeheartedly once I listen to his comments unedited, in their entirety.

 

[hacksawfg]

Here's another link to an article in the WSJ. This is the quote that concerns me:

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Addresses Nation’s Gun Laws - Washington Wire - WSJ

"Yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed,” he said. “What they are will depend on what the society understood was reasonable limitation” when the Constitution was written. He cited, for example, a misdemeanor at the time, of carrying a frightening looking weapon such as a “head ax”.

So my question is, who gets to determine what may constitute "frightening." The same people who get to determine what is or is not obscene? Gun control advocates? I'm guessing what we determine as frightening will be vastly different than your average soccer mom, either way I certainly don't want that decision in the hands of the government.

 

[Paco Bedejo]

Hrm...vote for Romney to get SCOTUS judges who will on our rights...or vote for Obama to get SCOTUS judges who will on our rights... What a dilemma!

This has made me lean a bit further toward "vote for Obama because our decline will be marginally faster, in order that the trouble might still be in my lifetime rather than my son's".

 

[Expat]

Hrm...vote for Romney to get SCOTUS judges who will on our rights...or vote for Obama to get SCOTUS judges who will on our rights... What a dilemma!

This has made me lean a bit further toward "vote for Obama because our decline will be marginally faster, in order that the trouble might still be in my lifetime rather than my son's".

So since you are eventually going to die any way, commit suicide and get it over and done with. That seems to be what you are saying.

 

[hornadylnl]

So since you are eventually going to die any way, commit suicide and get it over and done with. That seems to be what you are saying.

So you want to live a long and fruitful life while your children are enslaved by our debt. That seems to be what you are saying.

 

[iwearcowboyboots]

So since you are eventually going to die any way, commit suicide and get it over and done with. That seems to be what you are saying.

I didn't get that from what he said. Not sure what you read... Looks to me that he is saying that even though you say that Real Housewives of New Jersey is a better than Real Housewives of Orange County, he is disappointed by both.

 

[CampingJosh]

If he answered the questions directly as they were asked to him, he would be disbarred. Judges are forbidden from answering legal questions outside of their rulings.

All he can answer is how he might examine the issue. We're all reading way, way too much into this.