‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : ‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns


sbhaven
07-29-2012, 11:55
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is leaving open the possibility that some types of firearms, such as semiautomatic rifles the left lables as "assault weapons" and magazines holding 100 rounds of ammuntion, could be regulated by the government.

Justice Scalia: ‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice-scalia-it-will-have-to-be-decided-whether-govt-can-regulate-some-types-of-guns/
“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 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” he told host Chris Wallace.

JBnTX
07-29-2012, 12:08
If it's decided that the government can regulate what types of firearms we can own and use under the second amendment, couldn't they also decide to regulate what types of words we can use under the first amendment?

What a slippery slope!

countrygun
07-29-2012, 12:35
If it's decided that the government can regulate what types of firearms we can own and use under the second amendment, couldn't they also decide to regulate what types of words we can use under the first amendment?

What a slippery slope!


They already regulate.

I watched (still watching at the moment) the interview and as a longtime distruster of Govt etc I didn't find what he said to be terribly unreasonable. He did quote a precedent for a midemeanor case a very long time ago concerning a person carrying a "headsmans axe" as a tool of intimidation. Apparently "menacing with a weapon" existed a long time ago.

If you listened to his words carefully he was, IMO, trying to point out the issues of definition. IE is a shoulder fired missle, capable of taking an airliner covered by our 2A rights? As much as I worry about excessive laws I think I am OK with that limit.

He didn't really take a definitive stand, but if you listen to the beginning when he was laying out his theory of evaluating a law in the language and the meaning of the words at the time of writing, you get the feeling that he looks to the REASON an amendment or a law was written and if those reasons are still valid.

Just because he didn't give a fire and brimstone defense of the 2A don't rush to judge the Judge

azatrox
07-29-2012, 12:39
They already regulate.


That they do.

janice6
07-29-2012, 12:43
I believe the actual definition of "regulate", as used here is: "to eliminate completely".

Bruce H
07-29-2012, 12:47
People better wake the hell up and start regulating the government before it regulate the citizens into slavery.

azatrox
07-29-2012, 12:55
People better wake the hell up and start regulating the government before it regulate the citizens into slavery.

And how do the people do that when they have seemingly lost the SCOTUS too?

G29Reload
07-29-2012, 13:26
I believe the upper limit should be at field grade artillery.

Perhaps 20mm and 40mm cannons.

That's about the modern equivalent of Revolutionary war cannons, some of which were privately owned, and brought into use against the Brits at that time.

There was nothing seen wrong with privately owned artillery.

Machine guns and most things up to .50cal are a no-brainer and perfectly suitable. Modern equivalence.

This still needs to be pounded into theheads of the ignorant: What was used in CO was not an assault weapon and not full auto. Functionally no different than a repeating deer rifle and in fact a smaller caliber.

It was the scumbag at the wheel that was the problem. My rights are not debatable.

Bruce H
07-29-2012, 13:32
And how do the people do that when they have seemingly lost the SCOTUS too?


Unless I am sorely mistaken isn't the power to impeach by the house and trial in the senate extended to judges also?

countrygun
07-29-2012, 13:42
And how do the people do that when they have seemingly lost the SCOTUS too?


the SCOTUS is not part of the Legislative branch. It only looks at cases under laws written by the Legislative branch

Bren
07-29-2012, 13:46
And how do the people do that when they have seemingly lost the SCOTUS too?

If you think that, you need to take a look at history. Every major positive decision the SC has made in favor of gun rights has been made in the last 4 years.

Mister_Beefy
07-29-2012, 13:53
what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.

Ruble Noon
07-29-2012, 13:55
the SCOTUS is not part of the Legislative branch. It only looks at cases under laws written by the Legislative branch

You should explain that to justice Roberts.

KentuckyPatriot
07-29-2012, 14:06
Something to ponder over....


Regardless of how the possible "regulations" are construed, considered, trashed, etc., remember that the 2A does not say that we have a right to ammunition.

Those buying off the shelf could face hefty surcharges in the form of a new tax now that we have a precedent, and those reloading could be compelled to pay an equal tax for loading components.

Those with the money could have both guns and ammo, those without money will become the "have-nots" in this regard.

Not trying to start another ammo rush, but I think this is one area that is not given enough attention by owners and certainly once it is proposed the Dems will be all over themselves with glee.

Just a thought!

azatrox
07-29-2012, 14:06
Unless I am sorely mistaken isn't the power to impeach by the house and trial in the senate extended to judges also?

I'm all for it. Do we have the votes?

the SCOTUS is not part of the Legislative branch. It only looks at cases under laws written by the Legislative branch

What did Chief Justice Roberts do just last month..."tweak" the health care bill just a bit so that a tax could be imposed and the bill passed?

If you think that, you need to take a look at history. Every major positive decision the SC has made in favor of gun rights has been made in the last 4 years.

That was with a court that typically voted 5-4. Since then, the Chief Justice has voted with the minority, and the most conservative of the Justices has recently said "we'll see" when it comes to possible firearms restrictions.
What happened in the last four years is all well and fine, what have you done for me lately?

pugman
07-29-2012, 15:28
Ted Bundy's weapon of choice was usually a crowbar - does this mean I have at least two assault weapons in my house?

countrygun
07-29-2012, 15:40
You should explain that to justice Roberts.


Do you have any idea how many pieces of legislation are NOT brought before the SCOTUS?

If "We the People" would get off our buns and get involved in electing decent legislators and take responsibility for our own elected rep we would have little to worry about from the SCOTUS or the POTUS. But to think, as azatrox indicated, all is lost because of the SCOTUS is just to give lip service to excuse our laziness in all elections.

If we want decent laws it starts with electing decent lawmakers.

hogship
07-29-2012, 16:21
In this, it seems to me that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is using code words for "If I can find a loophole in the constitution, I'll give the government the right to decide which guns the people can have, and which ones they can't".........very disappointing, but that looks to be the only way interpret his meaning........

Once a ban is in effect on a permanent basis, given time, there is no limits to what our 2nd Amendment actually means.......or, doesn't mean. Those who want to ban guns will not ever be satisfied......because there will ALWAYS be the next criminal act to get them beating the drum for more gun control.

Scalia needs to remember why the 2nd A exists.......and, it ain't about duck hunting!

I can fully understand the disgust, fear, sense of helplessness, etc, that the Colorado shooter has invoked in all of us.........but, instead of restricting the rights of those who don't commit these crimes, it's high time we start putting some fear into the hearts of those who do commit these crimes.

I'm not in favor of lynching.......but, I see no reason why justice can't be swift and final, in cases where innocence isn't in question. They say that the death penalty isn't a deterrent, and to a point, that is arguable......but, I think quick public executions definitely are a deterrent, and ultimately do make some potential criminals think twice......


ooc

Chronos
07-29-2012, 16:28
If we want decent laws it starts with electing decent lawmakers.

I'd feel better about this approach if you could point out for us some historical examples of free societies that voted themselves into massive, centralized government power and socialism, and then back into freedom.

sbhaven
07-29-2012, 16:34
Full interview can be seen at this link...
http://www.hulu.com/dailymotion/http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xshqmf_fox-news-sunday-sun-jul-29-2012_news/embed/fTjL_TQ0zi-gXsFCfDAlZg

countrygun
07-29-2012, 16:35
I'd feel better about this approach if you could point out for us some historical examples of free societies that voted themselves into massive, centralized government power and socialism, and then back into freedom.


You prefer not trying and accepting the end as inevitable?

Besides that, it is rather difficult to prove anything along that line one way or the other. We could make a case that getting rid of Jimmy Carter might fit that description.

You might say abandoning Woodrow Wilson and our failure to support the League of Nations delayed the damage that we have seen from the UN meddling so just might have.

It is rather like trying to prove that, by turning right out of a parking lot instead of left, you avoided a traffic accident that didn't happen.

Chronos
07-29-2012, 16:42
You prefer not trying and accepting the end as inevitable?

Besides that, it is rather difficult to prove anything along that line one way or the other. We could make a case that getting rid of Jimmy Carter might fit that description.

You might say abandoning Woodrow Wilson and our failure to support the League of Nations delayed the damage that we have seen from the UN meddling so just might have.

It is rather like trying to prove that, by turning right out of a parking lot instead of left, you avoided a traffic accident that didn't happen.

I'm just saying that I'd feel better about it if democracy (republic or not) didn't seem like such an inevitable, one-way-track.

Yes, my current thinking is that I would be much more productive in promoting out-of-the-box solutions over voting, but my mind is definitely open.

azatrox
07-29-2012, 16:42
Do you have any idea how many pieces of legislation are NOT brought before the SCOTUS?

If "We the People" would get off our buns and get involved in electing decent legislators and take responsibility for our own elected rep we would have little to worry about from the SCOTUS or the POTUS. But to think, as azatrox indicated, all is lost because of the SCOTUS is just to give lip service to excuse our laziness in all elections.

If we want decent laws it starts with electing decent lawmakers.

Don't put words in my mouth.

BruceH stated "People better wake the hell up and start regulating the government".
I simply asked how are we to do that? When the people appointed to hold up the law of land have "strayed", what are the people to do when it comes to regualting THEIR govt?
Please enlighten us.