GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-29-2012, 11:55   #1
sbhaven
Senior Member
 
sbhaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Constitution State
Posts: 4,646
‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns

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/just...types-of-guns/
Quote:
“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.
__________________
Currently hiding behind enemy lines in a Blue State.

Last edited by sbhaven; 07-29-2012 at 11:56..
sbhaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:08   #2
JBnTX
None
 
JBnTX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,865
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!
JBnTX is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:35   #3
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBnTX View Post
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
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:39   #4
azatrox
Senior Member
 
azatrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
They already regulate.
That they do.
azatrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:43   #5
janice6
Platinum Membership
NRA
 
janice6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: minnesota
Posts: 17,290


I believe the actual definition of "regulate", as used here is: "to eliminate completely".
__________________
janice6

"Peace is that brief, glorious moment in history when everybody stands around reloading". Anonymous

Earp: Not everyone who knows you hates you.
DOC: I know it ain't always easy bein' my friend....but I'll BE THERE when you need me.
janice6 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:47   #6
Bruce H
Senior Member
 
Bruce H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: missouri
Posts: 4,517
People better wake the hell up and start regulating the government before it regulate the citizens into slavery.
__________________
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.
Bruce H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 12:55   #7
azatrox
Senior Member
 
azatrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce H View Post
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?
azatrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 13:26   #8
G29Reload
Tread Lightly
 
G29Reload's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,131
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.
__________________
Avenge me...AVENGE ME!
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_z2d4IxltHJ...on%26Fence.png
G29Reload is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 13:32   #9
Bruce H
Senior Member
 
Bruce H's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: missouri
Posts: 4,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by azatrox View Post
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?
__________________
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at once.
Bruce H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 13:42   #10
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by azatrox View Post
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
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 13:46   #11
Bren
NRA Life Member
 
Bren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 33,439
Quote:
Originally Posted by azatrox View Post
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.
__________________
If you are not an NRA member, you are not involved in gun rights, so sit down and shut the +%@# up.
Bren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 13:53   #12
Mister_Beefy
Legal & Proper
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,422
what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.
Mister_Beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 13:55   #13
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
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.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 14:06   #14
KentuckyPatriot
No BS Here!
 
KentuckyPatriot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 316
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!
__________________
Retired!
It's time for my nap...where's my hammock?

Gen 4: G22, G27; Gen 3: G23, G26, G30s
J-Frames: Model 60 and M&P 340; S&W Bodyguard 380 x 2
KentuckyPatriot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 14:06   #15
azatrox
Senior Member
 
azatrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce H View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bren View Post
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?

Last edited by azatrox; 07-29-2012 at 14:08..
azatrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 15:28   #16
pugman
Senior Member
 
pugman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 6,012
Ted Bundy's weapon of choice was usually a crowbar - does this mean I have at least two assault weapons in my house?
__________________
Now when asked when I think things will change I answer "The next time Thomas (aka the fed) robs Peter (aka the 53%) to pay Paul (aka the 47%) and Peter pulls a gun...things will change"
pugman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 15:40   #17
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
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.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 16:21   #18
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 11,701
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
__________________
NRA/VFW life, Harley Davidson FXDX, very patriotic!
Old iron pumper w/pony tail, Christian, lathe artist
Rock'n'Roll, AC/DC & Elvis! Clings to religion & guns!
Visit my Vietnam photo album, 1968-69 click on link
www.picturetrail.com/taipan22alpha

Last edited by hogship; 07-29-2012 at 16:33..
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 16:28   #19
Chronos
Senior Member
 
Chronos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
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.
__________________
If you've already accepted that "violence against the innocent" is a morally legitimate means of funding the government, who are you to complain when the majority apprporiates your legacy and sells your children into a lifetime of debt slavery?
Chronos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 16:34   #20
sbhaven
Senior Member
 
sbhaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Constitution State
Posts: 4,646
Full interview can be seen at this link...
http://www.hulu.com/dailymotion/http...zi-gXsFCfDAlZg
__________________
Currently hiding behind enemy lines in a Blue State.

Last edited by sbhaven; 07-29-2012 at 16:38..
sbhaven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 16:35   #21
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronos View Post
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.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 16:42   #22
Chronos
Senior Member
 
Chronos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
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.
__________________
If you've already accepted that "violence against the innocent" is a morally legitimate means of funding the government, who are you to complain when the majority apprporiates your legacy and sells your children into a lifetime of debt slavery?
Chronos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2012, 16:42   #23
azatrox
Senior Member
 
azatrox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
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.
azatrox is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:45.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 774
232 Members
542 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42