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 02-15-2013, 21:10   #1
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,958
Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America's demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/arti...3#.UR8GVfJS6rn
__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 21:51   #2
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,629
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 21:55   #3
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Yes..............
__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-15-2013, 23:36   #4
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 11,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Yes.....It mentions that Elana Keagan harvested a whitetail doe in Wyoming.

Familiarizing her with firearms isn't a bad thing, but I am not feeling very good about this at all.

What Scalia needs to do is teach her about what the constitution means.....and, if she is to uphold it, it really doesn't matter if she is pro or anti-gun.......the constitution is what it is, and it's about maintaining the relationship between "the people" and a militia. Because the second amendment is one sentence, and there is no room for doubt that arming private citizens for no other purpose than that of military preparedness is the sole focus, and objective of the document.

I'm getting really tired of hearing about hunting, and self defense. These things are included in the total meaning of the second amendment by default.....but they are not in any way, the purpose, or intent of the second amendment.

Why is Scalia not mentioning these things? I'll tell what I think all this means.........he is ready to fold under pressure, and not uphold the constitution for the very reason it was written, or exists.



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
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 00:21   #5
TK-421
Senior Member
 
TK-421's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,541
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
TK-421 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 01:25   #6
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 11,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
Good question, and I'm not the one who can definitively answer it, but it's my belief that you are correct. I also believe it must be taken up in a lower court, and ruled on there first, as well.....then appealed to the SCOTUS, before it can be ruled on by that court. A prior ruling can stand as is, or taken up by the SCOTUS, which has the ability to decide if a ruling can be taken up as an issue to be settled, or not.

Am I right, or wrong about that?

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; 02-16-2013 at 01:57..
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 05:41   #7
pipedreams
Member
 
pipedreams's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Iowa
Posts: 2,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by TK-421 View Post
I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
I believe your correct but keep in mind some states such as NY are already passing laws which they could rule on.
__________________
NRA Patron Member
GOA Life Member


Never look down on anybody, unless you're helping them up.
pipedreams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 08:16   #8
ithaca_deerslayer
Senior Member
 
ithaca_deerslayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Upstate NY, USA
Posts: 18,629
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogship View Post
Good question, and I'm not the one who can definitively answer it, but it's my belief that you are correct. I also believe it must be taken up in a lower court, and ruled on there first, as well.....then appealed to the SCOTUS, before it can be ruled on by that court. A prior ruling can stand as is, or taken up by the SCOTUS, which has the ability to decide if a ruling can be taken up as an issue to be settled, or not.

Am I right, or wrong about that?

ooc
A big reason for the SC to take a case is because federal appeals courts in different districts have come to different conclusions.

I believe it was a Maryland case that thus far says someone has the right to a CCW permit. And a NY case that thus far says someone does not have the right to a CCW permit.

Both of these cases made it to the federal level, but in different districts, and got two different answers. Thus the SC needs to step in and settle the question.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
ithaca_deerslayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 08:38   #9
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 393
US v Miller (1939) said that the 2nd protects the right to own a weapon that is of common use to the military in order to have an equally armed militia in the US. The precedent has been set, now we just need the SCOTUS to uphold that precedent and stop these rogue states from trampling on our rights.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 08:53   #10
Cambo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,622
Isn't Scalia the one in 2008 who talked about "reasonable restrictions" for certain types of weapons? That quote is being used up and down by the anti gun scum.
__________________
Browning Hi Power, the Ultimate 9mm
Cambo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:08   #11
jay1975
Ultra Master
 
jay1975's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Colorado
Posts: 393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Isn't Scalia the one in 2008 who talked about "reasonable restrictions" for certain types of weapons? That quote is being used up and down by the anti gun scum.
The only explanation he gave for "reasonable restrictions" was concerning shoulder launched rockets. Originally, he addressed this by saying he thinks it will be up to the court to finally settle what is allowed or not. Again, he has cited US v Miller before in saying that guns of common use are what can be protected under the 2nd, which includes the AR15 as it is common use with the military.
__________________
Fear the man who has one gun, for he knows how to use it.
jay1975 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:20   #12
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
US v Miller (1939) said that the 2nd protects the right to own a weapon that is of common use to the military in order to have an equally armed militia in the US. The precedent has been set, now we just need the SCOTUS to uphold that precedent and stop these rogue states from trampling on our rights.
And at the same time restricted short barrel shotguns and anything full auto.

It was a big mess that I looked into quite a bit when Alan Gura and Bob Levy were doing Heller, but I still don't really understand it. I'm not sure anyone does. Miller, or anyone representing him, did not show up.

http://web.archive.org/web/201002170...d=41&Itemid=53

I'm not sure if this link will work, as the site doesn't exist anymore, but it's on the way back machine.
do lot nam narsis do boi cao cap xe day doi cao cap cho be chan vay cong so thoi trang cong so gia re chup anh cho be
gunlawnew.org
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...

Last edited by Syclone538; 05-15-2013 at 05:46..
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:33   #13
SpectreRider
Armed Citizen
 
SpectreRider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: SoFla... want to move to America.
Posts: 912
The ar15 is not in common use in the US military... The M16 is. Maybe we will get an expansion of what is commonly allowed.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Begging hands and bleeding hearts will only cry out for more. -neil peart
What too many in America are missing is a sense of personal responsibility. -me
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
SpectreRider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 09:42   #14
HarleyGuy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,015
Quote:
Originally Posted by jay1975 View Post
The only explanation he gave for "reasonable restrictions" was concerning shoulder launched rockets. Originally, he addressed this by saying he thinks it will be up to the court to finally settle what is allowed or not. Again, he has cited US v Miller before in saying that guns of common use are what can be protected under the 2nd, which includes the AR15 as it is common use with the military.
Unless I'm very mistaken, the military uses a select-fire, fully automatic, M-16 carbine, as does many law enforcement agencies here in the U.S.
However, I doubt that since full autos have been "regulated" since 1934(?).
I doubt there's little chance that they will ever be obtainable (mainly due to the price) for the average guy but I do believe that we can protect our rights to own pistols and rifles that use semi-auto technology which has been around for more than a century.

The more anti-gun folks (i.e. Piers Morgan etc.) will occasionally toss in the inflamatory and complete B.S. about rocket launchers, bazookas and tanks, which I doubt any sane supporter of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS would agree with.

Last edited by HarleyGuy; 02-16-2013 at 09:44..
HarleyGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 10:25   #15
snerd
Senior Member
 
snerd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,377
After Obamacare, anyone who thinks they will rule Constitutionally on guns is delusional.
__________________
Truth is, you could shove Obama's knowledge of small business operations and job creation up an gnats butt and it would rattle around like a marble in an empty supertanker. - Neil Boortz
snerd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 12:57   #16
Comrade Bork
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 874
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
A big reason for the SC to take a case is because federal appeals courts in different districts have come to different conclusions.

I believe it was a Maryland case that thus far says someone has the right to a CCW permit. And a NY case that thus far says someone does not have the right to a CCW permit.

Both of these cases made it to the federal level, but in different districts, and got two different answers. Thus the SC needs to step in and settle the question.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?
Last December a Fed District court pretty much directed Illinois, the only remaining State with no CCW law, to adopt one by about June

That was how Ohio got theirs.
Comrade Bork is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 13:07   #17
SPIN2010
Searching ...
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: On the move ... again!
Posts: 1,840
Quote:
Originally Posted by snerd View Post
After Obamacare, anyone who thinks they will rule Constitutionally on guns is delusional.
On the money!
SPIN2010 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 13:40   #18
Electrikkoolaid
Grape flavored!
 
Electrikkoolaid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 806
Isn't this the same supreme court that decided government can condemn private property under immanent domain and turn it over for private development?

Not feeling very optimistic about reversing anything, and it will take years of working through delays before it makes it to SCOTUS -- by which time Obama may have one or more of his nominees in place.
__________________
We need to stop asking "who will pay for healthcare" and start asking "why does it cost so much?"
Electrikkoolaid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 14:21   #19
GAFinch
Senior Member
 
GAFinch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Georgia
Posts: 5,782
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cambo View Post
Isn't Scalia the one in 2008 who talked about "reasonable restrictions" for certain types of weapons? That quote is being used up and down by the anti gun scum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrikkoolaid View Post
Isn't this the same supreme court that decided government can condemn private property under immanent domain and turn it over for private development?

Not feeling very optimistic about reversing anything, and it will take years of working through delays before it makes it to SCOTUS -- by which time Obama may have one or more of his nominees in place.
Almost all constitutional laws/amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions. It doesn't seem like Scalia is making threats, just stating a fact. He firmly believes that the Constitution is a dead document that needs to be upheld based on its original interpretation, not re-examined during every socio-political fad that comes along.

It does normally take years for challenges to work their way up to the SCOTUS, but it looks Scalia is intentionally trying to speed up the process and lock in various pro-2A decisions before Obama finishes flipping the court to progressives. He's smart enough to know from history what will happen if the public is disarmed.
__________________
Fear the government that fears your guns.
GAFinch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 16:39   #20
writwing
Senior Member
 
writwing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,305
Quote:
Originally Posted by ithaca_deerslayer View Post
Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt

It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

___________
I joined the NRA, have you yet?

As you know second amendment is not about hunting. Leopards don't change their spots. If it goes to the SCOTUS we are in trouble.
__________________
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life. T. Roosevelt
writwing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 17:22   #21
Cavalry Doc
Silver Membership
MAJ (USA Ret.)
 
Cavalry Doc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 41,204


Better hope the pro-RKBA justices stay healthy. Barry has his picks ready.
Cavalry Doc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 17:27   #22
Syclone538
Senior Member
 
Syclone538's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by writwing View Post
...
If it goes to the SCOTUS we are in trouble.
What has changed since Heller and McDonald?
quan lot rbi do boi dep xe day doi ao so mi nu thoi trang cong so chup anh cho be
__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.
Do lot Do so sinh Ban buon quan ao Chup anh cho be
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAcop View Post
...
The constitution is not, nor was it meant to be absolutely literal.
...

Last edited by Syclone538; 05-15-2013 at 05:46..
Syclone538 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 17:44   #23
hogship
It's MY Island
 
hogship's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Northwest territory, pardner!
Posts: 11,701
Quote:
Originally Posted by GAFinch View Post
Almost all constitutional laws/amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions. It doesn't seem like Scalia is making threats, just stating a fact. He firmly believes that the Constitution is a dead document that needs to be upheld based on its original interpretation, not re-examined during every socio-political fad that comes along.

It does normally take years for challenges to work their way up to the SCOTUS, but it looks Scalia is intentionally trying to speed up the process and lock in various pro-2A decisions before Obama finishes flipping the court to progressives. He's smart enough to know from history what will happen if the public is disarmed.
Man, I hope like hell you are right!

I'm so used to having government people do exactly what I never thought they would do, that I guess I just have learned to expect the worst, and hope for the best.

Your thoughts do make quite a bit of "horse sense", and if that's Scalia's plans, he will gain back some respect he lost with Obamacare decision.

ooc



Note: The more I think about it, the more I'm totally amazed that Elana Kagan has actually gone hunting with Scalia. I had her pegged as someone who wishes a total disarming of the American public.......this can't be a bad thing. I'm sure Scalia is working on her to support constitutional rights, and that can't be a bad thing either. Any change in Kagan's gun philosophy can't get any worse, and can only get better.

Very good on Scalia.......

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
hogship is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-16-2013, 18:05   #24
The Machinist
No Compromise
 
The Machinist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: The Left Coast
Posts: 5,813
Quote:
Originally Posted by hogship View Post
I had her pegged as someone who wishes a total disarming of the American public.......this can't be a bad thing. I'm sure Scalia is working on her to support constitutional rights, and that can't be a bad thing either. Any change in Kagan's gun philosophy can't get any worse, and can only get better.

Very good on Scalia.......

ooc
Hypocrisy is a core tenet of liberalism. There are plenty of left-wingers who shoot guns, who would love to ban AR-15s, regardless. She may have personally a hunting trip, but as a progressive, her overriding goal in all things is to cement the power of the government over the citizenry.
__________________
Proud to be an infidel!
The Machinist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-17-2013, 05:52   #25
ArtyGuy
Senior Member
 
ArtyGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 805
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyGuy View Post
Unless I'm very mistaken, the military uses a select-fire, fully automatic, M-16 carbine, as does many law enforcement agencies here in the U.S.
However, I doubt that since full autos have been "regulated" since 1934(?).
I doubt there's little chance that they will ever be obtainable (mainly due to the price) for the average guy but I do believe that we can protect our rights to own pistols and rifles that use semi-auto technology which has been around for more than a century.

The more anti-gun folks (i.e. Piers Morgan etc.) will occasionally toss in the inflamatory and complete B.S. about rocket launchers, bazookas and tanks, which I doubt any sane supporter of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS would agree with.
We use both the M-16 and M-4. Neither shoot fully automatic. It fires semi-automatic or it fires a 3-rd burst. The changes were made a while back. The major reason for the change to burst, versus full auto, was due to inaccuracies in the full auto mode and ammo consumption. We do have a fully automatic weapon in squads- the M249 SAW. We also have the crew served M-240B, which replaced the M-60 machine gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M240_machine_gun
__________________
The King puts the balls where the Queen wants them.
ArtyGuy 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 13:53.



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


Users Currently Online: 1,164
360 Members
804 Guests

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