PDA

View Full Version : Scalia: Guns May be Regulated


hawk1
07-29-2012, 8:11 AM
Wouldn't have expected this from him.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

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...

CitaDeL
07-29-2012, 8:16 AM
Wouldn't have expected this from him.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729


Hmm,... even regulate menacing hand-held weapons that are in common use?

While machine guns are already regulated, what will be the argument that Scalia would use to claim that a ban on semi-automatic weapons in common use be Constitutional?

EM2
07-29-2012, 8:19 AM
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In my humble opinion..... he is wrong.

VW*Mike
07-29-2012, 8:24 AM
I think he is saying it as a warning shot over the bow of what the left leaning judges are thinking. With the age of certain judges, and the split, he may just be trying to energize voters to get out and vote to ensure a Republican President can make some appointments, sooner then later.......

taperxz
07-29-2012, 8:25 AM
Scalia has been saying this for quite a while. It is also one of the reasons that CGF from day one has decided to go after LTC's first in this state as opposed to LOC. Gene has always said "some" regulation IS reasonable. Scalia IMHO simply is saying that "some regulation" IS reasonable.

Try not to put to much in his words in an interview, or put words or ideas into his mouth. He is a poker player when it comes to the other justices.

Oceanbob
07-29-2012, 8:28 AM
Memo: Ronald Reagan appointed Mr. Scalia. Long regarded as our Conservative Judge. Too bad he apparenty is willing to bend the 2nd Amendment.

We can't count on the Supreme Court to protect our Gun Rights anymore Folks.

:mad:

taperxz
07-29-2012, 8:30 AM
So Scalia is not taken out of context here. This is really all he said/


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

bussda
07-29-2012, 8:34 AM
While I understand there is disappointment in that statement, even speech and the press can be regulated. The main point is how much regulation does not infringe on the right.

taperxz
07-29-2012, 8:40 AM
While I understand there is disappointment in that statement, even speech and the press can be regulated. The main point is how much regulation does not infringe on the right.

Why would anyone be disappointed in this statement? Scalia NEVER said room for MORE regulation. He just said the 2A was left open FOR SOME regulation by the government. For all we know he could think that present day gun laws exceed governmental regulation.

RRangel
07-29-2012, 8:44 AM
He's not mentioning anything new if you have been paying attention.

SilverTauron
07-29-2012, 8:47 AM
I realize this post is going to sound like a Brady shill hijacked my account,but I promise you its me posting this.Know that I support the 2nd Amendment,but at the same time we must be honest about our history with regard to the RKBA.We should leave deceit to the Brady Campaign.

Guns have ALWAYS been regulated in America.There was gun registration in the 1700s.For most of our nations history concealed carry was limited to law enforcement and military.
Put simply,there has never been a state in America's history where "shall not be infringed" was literal policy nationwide.There's always been some level of regulation,and we are at a point today which is the closest we have ever been to that ideal,some exceptions notwithsanding such as NJ.

Bottom line,Justice Scalia is acknowledging accepted reality ,the wishes of several states,and historical truth in his statement.I don't like it either,but there will always be some kind of gun regulation on the books in America.Even if the Feds strike down every arms limitation on the books,some states still do not have individual mandates for the RKBA in their constitutions.For various reasons,voters in NJ and other similar states want strict gun control...and the SCOTUS is not ready to take on that state's rightsvs Federal law argument just yet.

interstellar
07-29-2012, 8:49 AM
Recommend everyone read "Gun Fight" by Adam Winkler. You'll understand Scalia's comments when you get done reading it.

taperxz
07-29-2012, 8:53 AM
I realize this post is going to sound like a Brady shill hijacked my account,but I promise you its me posting this.Know that I support the 2nd Amendment,but at the same time we must be honest about our history with regard to the RKBA.We should leave deceit to the Brady Campaign.

Guns have ALWAYS been regulated in America.There was gun registration in the 1700s.For most of our nations history concealed carry was limited to law enforcement and military.
Put simply,there has never been a state in America's history where "shall not be infringed" was literal policy nationwide.There's always been some level of regulation,and we are at a point today which is the closest we have ever been to that ideal,some exceptions notwithsanding such as NJ.

Bottom line,Justice Scalia is acknowledging accepted reality ,the wishes of several states,and historical truth in his statement.I don't like it either,but there will always be some kind of gun regulation on the books in America.Even if the Feds strike down every arms limitation on the books,some states still do not have individual mandates for the RKBA in their constitutions.For various reasons,voters in NJ and other similar states want strict gun control...and the SCOTUS is not ready to take on that state's rightsvs Federal law argument just yet.



What are you talking about (bold) are you saying the scotus did not incorporate the 2A recently?

VegasND
07-29-2012, 8:54 AM
This is going to be more interesting than we imagined.

It would be nice if SCOTUS would outline how they are going to define those limits.

therealnickb
07-29-2012, 8:55 AM
So Scalia is not taken out of context here. This is really all he said/

And in addition to the context, the example he used seemed clear to me and focused more on the menacing than anything.

He said on face the nation you shouldn't have people walking around with a broad axe over their shoulder tying to intimidate other people.

He reiterated that any limitations would need to be decided in future court cases. Keep and bear mean just that, so in his opinion cannons are out. If you can't carry it, it's not protected.

pHredd9mm
07-29-2012, 8:58 AM
Judge Scalia mentioned some "menacing" guns being regulated in the 18th century. What was he talking about?

SilverTauron
07-29-2012, 8:59 AM
[/B]


What are you talking about (bold) are you saying the scotus did not incorporate the 2A recently?

My post was in reference to a State's right to establish regulation vs enumerated Federal statutes against it.Aka,Feds repeal gun laws and mandate that in accordance with the 2A no state may pass infringing legislation. We can bet our bottom dollar CA,NJ,NY,HI,IL,MD would all join to file suit that gun laws are a 'State's Rights ' issue not subject to Federal interference.It would seem my wording above was confusing.

therealnickb
07-29-2012, 9:04 AM
Judge Scalia mentioned some "menacing" guns being regulated in the 18th century. What was he talking about?

With that term I heard him mention only broad axe like an executioner would use.

taperxz
07-29-2012, 9:09 AM
My post was in reference to a State's right to establish regulation vs enumerated Federal statutes against it.Aka,Feds repeal gun laws and mandate that in accordance with the 2A no state may pass infringing legislation. We can bet our bottom dollar CA,NJ,NY,HI,IL,MD would all join to file suit that gun laws are a 'State's Rights ' issue not subject to Federal interference.It would seem my wording above was confusing.

Mostly that you mentioned SCOTUS was not ready to do this. I think they are but need the right case set to rule on. You know the internet speed thing;)

With the Supreme Court wanting to get the "right case" this will allow the ruling to be etched in stone as opposed to written on a dixie cup for furture generations.

OleCuss
07-29-2012, 9:25 AM
I watched the relevant clip last night. I thought it was a nothing burger.

He said there could be some regulation (Duh, sensitive places?). And if he told us how he was going to vote on an upcoming issue then there'd be questions about whether he could fairly hear a case since he'd already decided.

The interview that I saw showed absolutely nothing new or surprising.

Whiskey_Sauer
07-29-2012, 9:34 AM
I swear to God, it's like some of you have never even read Heller.

hoffmang
07-29-2012, 9:37 AM
Chillax.

Guns are regulated in America. Here is a list of regulations that no SCOTUS judge will vote to strike down:
Instant Background Checks at commercial point of purchase
Bar on violent felons, those adjudged a danger to self or others due to mental illness
Bar on known addicts
Handgun sales to those under 18
Most any firearms sales to those under 18, but not gift/transfer
No discharge in urban and suburban environments w/ self defense exceptions
New firearms must have non obliterated serial numbers

More controversial, but long supported by historical law:
Regulations on the manner of carry - open only, concealed only, no concealed without a permit...
Afray - you can't go running around town with your firearm out in a menacing manner. In a holster, on a sling on your back - ok. Port arms w/ a rifle... Can be regulated.

-Gene

The War Wagon
07-29-2012, 9:42 AM
I'm SELF-regulating.

I buy what I like and what I can afford - I save for the stuff I'd like to have, and allow others to do the same.

The only regulation I "need" from politicians, is emission regulations - preferably, from their mouths... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/dry.gif

Skidmark
07-29-2012, 9:47 AM
Memo: Ronald Reagan appointed Mr. Scalia. Long regarded as our Conservative Judge. Too bad he apparenty is willing to bend the 2nd Amendment.

We can't count on the Supreme Court to protect our Gun Rights anymore Folks.

Read Gun Fight by Adam Winkler, to get a better understanding of Scalia's "flexibility" on 2A and his willingness to legislate from the bench.

taperxz
07-29-2012, 9:48 AM
I'm SELF-regulating.

I buy what I like and what I can afford - I save for the stuff I'd like to have, and allow others to do the same.

The only regulation I "need" from politicians, is emission regulations - preferably, from their mouths... http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-basic/dry.gif

Do you really think things can't be regulated by what you can and can't afford? Since you are so willing to save for what YOU can have? There will always be some form of regulation. Whether telling you what you can or can't have or by simply making things cost prohibitive through taxes and tariffs.

HowardW56
07-29-2012, 9:50 AM
ok. Port arms w/ a rifle... Can be regulated.

-Gene

:rofl2:

donw
07-29-2012, 9:52 AM
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In my humble opinion..... he is wrong.

it does NOT stipulate anything other than "TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"...that's the 'catch 22' legislators play on...it is NOT explicit in it's definition(s); that leaves it wide open for 'Reasonable' regulation.

B Strong
07-29-2012, 10:02 AM
IMO, restrictions on sales to felons or mentally distrubed individuals will stand, requirement for a license to engage in the business of selling firearms will stand as will licensing for commercial manufacture.

Carry permits will stand under state's rights as long as issuance is equitable and not exculsionary.

The NFA will stand.

Restrictions on AW's will be an interesting fight, and the only wildcard is the ability of the president (any president) to simply direct the ATF to revise the classification of semi-auto rifles as NFA weapons or devices - ATF rule 94-1 lays the ground work - and then there would be an amnesty period for registration.

I don't see confiscation of firearms on the horizon anywhere, and that would be one hell of a tough sell legally.

GM4spd
07-29-2012, 10:07 AM
He's not mentioning anything new if you have been paying attention.

This. Pete

taperxz
07-29-2012, 10:08 AM
IMO, restrictions on sales to felons or mentally distrubed individuals will stand, requirement for a license to engage in the business of selling firearms will stand as will licensing for commercial manufacture.

Carry permits will stand under state's rights as long as issuance is equitable and not exculsionary.

The NFA will stand.

Restrictions on AW's will be an interesting fight, and the only wildcard is the ability of the president (any president) to simply direct the ATF to revise the classification of semi-auto rifles as NFA weapons or devices - ATF rule 94-1 lays the ground work - and then there would be an amnesty period for registration.

I don't see confiscation of firearms on the horizon anywhere, and that would be one hell of a tough sell legally.

Not to mention the irony in having to borrow money from China to purchase the confiscated firearms from the citizens at a ridiculous interest rate. Oh the irony. China would actually make money off disarming the citizens of the U.S.

2009_gunner
07-29-2012, 10:11 AM
It sounds to me like Scalia is being thoughtful as usual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tQjaK0HfU

p2tQjaK0HfU

safewaysecurity
07-29-2012, 10:54 AM
I don't think Scalia would vote against semi autos due to their common use. Maybe even full auto.

Librarian
07-29-2012, 12:01 PM
His comment here is entirely consistent with Heller.

What I like, though is the sub-head on one of the linked articles:Three Simple Steps
Yes, no new gun-control legislation can make it through this Congress ...

Legasat
07-29-2012, 12:01 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2tQjaK0HfU

p2tQjaK0HfU

That sounds like a reasonable answer for where we are at.

fiddletown
07-29-2012, 12:03 PM
Wouldn't have expected this from him.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

Yawn! There's nothing new here.

Yes, guns may be regulated. Indeed it's well settled law that constitutionally protected rights are subject to limited governmental regulation. Of course any such regulation can be challenged, and whatever governmental authority seeks to impose the regulation can have its day in court and the opportunity to make its case that the regulation satisfies the applicable legal standards for the impairment of a constitutionally protected right.

It's also historically true that the keeping and bearing of arms was subject to some regulation before, at the time of, and after the adoption of the Second Amendment. For an interesting discussion of early gun control, see Adam Winkler's Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America (W. W. Norton & Company, 2011).

odysseus
07-29-2012, 12:51 PM
I read this article earlier and will echo that nothing Scalia said should be a surprise. It is already a point of opinion previously expressed by the Court. I like his passion in that he said he doesn't want to leave his position to be filled by someone set to undue his hard work.

b.faust
07-29-2012, 1:20 PM
Personally I think they need to quit focusing on the 'tools' of violence (in the latest case firearms), and more on the damn cause.

I think any focus on ANY new regulation should go into how mental illness is reported.
Currently it's not. The only 'check' that happens for that is when you are required to answer questions on your DROS (at least in California).

The "right to privacy" covers people from mild depression or general medical conditions, to basically stark raving lunatic.
Even if someone is voluntarily committed to an institution, there is no consistent reporting requirements to any federal or local database.
If it's an involuntary commitment, it's a matter of police record, and can possibly flag.

The problem with reporting is the mental health advocates are worried about 'stigmatizing' the mentally ill. Even if it's a matter of public safety.

I'm not proposing that people who suffer from mild depression or general anxiety should be barred from exercising their 2A rights, however, if they've ever been committed to an institution due to them being a danger to themselves or others there should be some flag.

I know this is a bit off topic, but I'm getting sick of hearing about more 'gun laws/regulations'
Also, my girlfriend is a mental health professional who thinks more gun laws are a moot topic in the face of all the other things going on.

ICONIC
07-29-2012, 1:27 PM
All Civil Liberties have some sort of regulations attached to them. Especially the first and fourth amendments. Nothing new here

nicki
07-29-2012, 3:29 PM
The premise of gun or any other regulations is that they will actually work.

When those regulations are in conflict with rights, then what comes is the argument that the needs of the public outweigh the individual's rights.

Now, if those regulations or laws can be readily avoided, then what you have are laws are evaded by the people they are supposed to regulate while at the same time they create restraints on people who cause no problems with society.

Gun laws and regulations that we have that are passed under the guise of providing for the public safety which are easily avoided by the class of people that are supposed to be regulated that effectively not only burden, but in many cases eliminate the right of self defense shouldn't survive constitutional challenges.

The so called assault weapons are very common arms, but very uncommon crime guns.

The issue of magazines will be a touchy one, that being said, considering the jamming problems extra capacity magazines have, one could make the argument that because James ****head used a beta mag, his gun jammed resulting in less lives lost.

Considering this guy knew chemistry very well, had his house rigged ready to blow, IMHO, if the couldn't get a "semi auto rifle", he may have decided to cook up some binary nerve gas or something similar, force theater goers to the back of the theater, then lobe a few cannnisters of poison gas and just shoot anyone who could possibly try to make a break for it.

The casualties would have been far higher.

Since he was a cold blooded calculating killer, I suspect he picked the AR 15 and the beta mag to get the most media attention. That is the sick part.

Nicki

OleCuss
07-29-2012, 3:41 PM
nicki:

I mostly agree. This cretin was probably not primarily about causing the maximum number of casualties.

But I'm going to disagree just a little about the probable motivation.

When the guards would not tell him the ending of the movie, he became very uncooperative - spitting at them and such. Also, note that he referred to himself as the Joker and had dyed his hair red.

I think this is someone who likely identified very closely with the "Joker" character and decided that he would act as would the "Joker" were the "Joker" to attend a midnight showing/premier of the movie. I'm guessing that he'd not figure that the "Joker" would be using explosives to do the deed in that situation.

Also, as I've heard the story, he was standing toward the front of the theater (and therefore close to the movie screen). By being in front of the screen and everyone looking toward him he is sort of participating in the movie experience as one of the characters.

I think this was a person with a somewhat marginal grasp on reality who entered quite fully into the fantasy that the Batman creators have tried to create.

SoCalXD
07-29-2012, 3:56 PM
I think Gene's call to relax (and take a deep breath, count to 10, whatever!) is good advise. We need to individually and collectively be good tacticians and politically-adept citizens on these issues. Don't fret over the recent progressive-statist politicians and their co-dependant media's recent arm flapping. Do not let them set the agenda, the talking points, nor the definitions of words. Educate yourself on the rational talking points (I know the NRA has them, but I don't know if Calguns does... Gene?).

And for heaven's sake, get a couple of people you know to join the NRA! That's all it would probably take... If we could double or triple the membership of NRA, we would have our freedoms locked down tight!

Goosebrown
07-29-2012, 4:02 PM
It would be nice if SCOTUS would outline how they are going to define those limits.

They did in McDonald I think or Heller. In any event they cited some time and place limitations as legitimate and left the door open to other limitations. I believe these limits will be a lot more reasonable than one might expect.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-29-2012, 4:09 PM
Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


In my humble opinion..... he is wrong.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

If and when the GOV finally decides that all we are allowed is a revolver or a lever gun, they will say that they did not infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms.

They will be right, in effect, as no one can agree on what "arms" really means. There is only speculation that I am aware of unless someone can point me to a document that clearly defines what an "arm" is in the sense of 2A.

Feel free to argue with me all you like on this, but the fact remains that the GOV has been working toward this end for many, many years - we all know it.
Question is, how to actually stop it - working within the confines of a citizen standing against those who make and enforce law?

A.W.D.

HowardW56
07-29-2012, 4:26 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again...

If and when the GOV finally decides that all we are allowed is a revolver or a lever gun, they will say that they did not infringe on our rights to keep and bear arms.

They will be right, in effect, as no one can agree on what "arms" really means. There is only speculation that I am aware of unless someone can point me to a document that clearly defines what an "arm" is in the sense of 2A.

Feel free to argue with me all you like on this, but the fact remains that the GOV has been working toward this end for many, many years - we all know it.
Question is, how to actually stop it - working within the confines of a citizen standing against those who make and enforce law?

A.W.D.

Have you taken the time to read the Heller Opinion completely. If you haven't, you should. I think you'll find it isn't bad for us at all... If you are of the opinion that any regulation should be prohibited, they you won't feel it goes far enough...

MaHoTex
07-29-2012, 6:49 PM
And the real kicker from Fox news:

"His comments also follow those of lawmakers who have called for tougher gun-related laws in the wake of the shootings – most recently New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats who said Sunday they will introduce legislation this week to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet, as was done before the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.”

CessnaDriver
07-29-2012, 10:12 PM
http://i261.photobucket.com/albums/ii44/CessnaDriver/han.jpg

HowardW56
07-29-2012, 10:22 PM
And the real kicker from Fox news:

"His comments also follow those of lawmakers who have called for tougher gun-related laws in the wake of the shootings – most recently New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats who said Sunday they will introduce legislation this week to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet, as was done before the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.”

I wouldn't stress over it... It would never make it through or out of the House of Representatives....

Jason P
07-29-2012, 10:25 PM
Memo: Ronald Reagan appointed Mr. Scalia. Long regarded as our Conservative Judge. Too bad he apparenty is willing to bend the 2nd Amendment.

We can't count on the Supreme Court to protect our Gun Rights anymore Folks.

:mad:

We haven't been able to count on them for that truly since the Miller verdict.

dantodd
07-29-2012, 10:35 PM
Anyone still worried about Justice Scalia's commitment to protecting our second amendment rights should really watch the video posted earlier. The news article misconstrued his comments significantly.

corrosively_armed
07-29-2012, 10:36 PM
There are several fictional books which put forth the idea that a second civil war will start if guns are banned on a national level. A ban on centerfire semi automatic rifles would pretty much cover anything 'assault' related although you know rimfire semis would be next. Any sort of heavy handedness at this point will lead to a whole bunch of wacos culminating in some very uncertain times. I don't think anyone is honestly willing to take it that far yet in congress but it could happen. I honestly expect a major conflict within the United States no later than about 2030.

Bruce
07-29-2012, 10:50 PM
Neither he or any other justice is going to rule on a case that hasn't come before his court yet. But since he didn't say there shouldn't be any regulation on firearms, to many gun owners Scalia is now a slimy commie bastard, who should be boiled in oil, drawn and quartered, hung from the highest yard-arm, and sent to bed without his supper. Save the indignation for a real injustice.

sholling
07-29-2012, 11:01 PM
I saw him on Fox this morning and while his statements on possible regulation were disappointing he was as supportive of "bear" as he could be without stating how he would rule on future cases. He seemed to be having fun playing with Chris Wallace when he said that while a canon may not fall under the 2nd because you can't "bear" a canon he also teased that a handheld rocket launcher might fall under the 2nd because it's bearable. ;)

Anyway he really stressed "bear" as a key right.

The problem with his wing of the court is the idea that they feel they should defer to congress whenever it's possible to find a way to read the constitution to allow the action congress whats to take rather than take a pro liberty approach. He also seems to totally dismiss the 9th Amendment. I assume that's because he doesn't like the openendedness of the 9th.

Gray Peterson
07-30-2012, 12:01 AM
There are several fictional books which put forth the idea that a second civil war will start if guns are banned on a national level. A ban on centerfire semi automatic rifles would pretty much cover anything 'assault' related although you know rimfire semis would be next. Any sort of heavy handedness at this point will lead to a whole bunch of wacos culminating in some very uncertain times. I don't think anyone is honestly willing to take it that far yet in congress but it could happen. I honestly expect a major conflict within the United States no later than about 2030.

That's not going to happen. By 2030, every state in the union will have shall-issue carry licensing or misnomered "constitutional carry" for nearly 20 years.

Carry kills gun control dead.

Connor P Price
07-30-2012, 12:24 AM
Carry kills gun control dead.

THIS^

The emotional "blood in the streets" argument still gains ground with people in the population centers of CA, NY, NJ etc. only because they still say they are somehow different than the rest of the country. They argue that densely populated areas are somehow different than the vast majority of the nation. We on the other hand understand that human nature is the same regardless of population density.

Once there is 50 state carry, a lot of the carry naysayers will begin eating crow when they realize crime is still going down. Die hard antis will always be antis, but Americans on the whole will realize in due time that nationwide carry does not lead to elevated crime. The gun control movement will have no wind left in their sails.

gorblimey
07-30-2012, 4:41 AM
That's not going to happen. By 2030, every state in the union will have shall-issue carry licensing or misnomered "constitutional carry" for nearly 20 years.

Carry kills gun control dead.


You are laboring under the severe misapprehension that the political and legal wranglings of the day are anything but the increasingly violent convulsions of a decaying, demographically doomed, genocidal (Iraq and other adventures) petro-dollar empire.

While it's impossible to predict the specifics of 2030 (although, having been born and raised behind the Iron Curtain, I have a few ideas) the macro trend is abundantly clear.

But never mind the happiness surely awaiting the next generation. Here's David Codrea's take on the Scalia thing:

http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-s-establishment-take-on-gun-control-should-be-no-surprise-to-gun-owners?CID=examiner_alerts_article

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 5:35 AM
Interesting David Codrea article. There was some truth in it, but overall it was stupid garbage which should make anyone who has even a minimal understanding of 2A jurisprudence think he is a fool or ill-informed.

One need go no further than his pointing out that Scalia opined in a 1997 book that there was "no limitation upon arms control by the states."

What an idiotic thing to point out in this context! At that time the 2A had not been incorporated against the states and was therefore clearly not an impediment to states' control of arms. Duh! Key to understanding the context is that Scalia was one of the justices who voted to incorporate the 2A against the states.

Scalia's interview broke absolutely no new ground. When I first heard the relevant part of his interview I thought it so uninteresting that I didn't even bother to post about it even though the new thread would not have been a duplicate (didn't hit this forum for another 8-12 hours).

It is very unlikely that we will get the RKBA recognized in precisely the manner I think it should be. But that Codrea article is worthwhile only as entertainment - no significant insight is available there.

Aegis
07-30-2012, 7:14 AM
Are we even sure if SCOTUS will take a carry case this next term?

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 7:22 AM
Are we even sure if SCOTUS will take a carry case this next term?

No one knows (including SCOTUS).

But there are some indications from last term that SCOTUS may have been interested in taking a carry case. That they did not seems to be an indication that they are waiting for a good civilian case. I believe we have those cases coming up for cert in the near future so the odds are pretty good that we have a carry case decided by July of 2013.

But sure? No.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2012, 7:37 AM
http://www.examiner.com/article/scalia-stuns-identity-conservatives-says-guns-can-be-regulated?fb_comment_id=fbc_10151073138858839_2344 9331_10151074025573839#f3ad11c5

One test the courts have employed in Heller vs DC and previous cases to decide what arms are protected is the 'common use' test.

It goes something like this: If an arm is contemporarily in common use, if it is a bearable arm, then it is presumptively protected by the second amendment.

This is important, because for the amendment to have it's intended effect. the arms that are owned and carried must be sufficient to counteract the arms that they are intended to oppose.

One traditionally lawful use of firearms is to defend against violent crime. Requiring citizens to carry arms that have inferior performance characteristics, with magazine capacity restrictions for example, would eviscerate the amendment for one of it's core purposes.

Highly trained police routinely exceed 10, 20 or even 30 rounds of ammunition subduing a single violent subject. Lethal encounters are often rapidly evolving, dynamic events where many shots may miss their mark. An assailant may have body armor or drugs on board which may delay his response to defensive gunfire.

A typical citizen will not have the advantages that a police officer has in terms of protective gear, radio backup, multiple force options, and years of experience.

In defending one's family, it is not reasonable expect a citizen to accomplish with ten rounds what a police officer cannot with all of his or her built-in advantages.

Frighteningly common home invasions usually involve multiple armed intruders. In such circumstances, having a restricted 10-round magazine can get innocent people killed.

Assault Weapons:
Except for the issue of magazine capacity, there is NO difference in the performance characteristics between semi-automatic rifles designed for hunting and those with a more military appearance.

The 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington rounds used in what are popularly dubbed 'assault rifles' are considered too inferior for humane deer hunting in many states.

That statement is not intended to underplay the lethality of any rifle round, but it is intended to debunk the false idea that military-style semi-automatic rifles are somehow overpowered and inappropriate for civilian use.

Indeed, the 5.56/.223 round is considered an urban defense round due to it's significant loss of lethality after penetrating building material. Liability conscious police agencies favor the AR15 rifles precisely for this attribute.

When the court cases finally come, the high court will look at these issues very carefully, not through the lens of media hype and inflammatory monikers like 'assault weapon'.

The Second Amendment serves many purposes. It protects hunting, self-defense, defense of community, it's intended as a final safeguard against any future tyrannical government, and it's emblematic of the fact that we are a self-governed people.

But it's only specifically enumerated purpose, announced in it's first clause, is to protect the ability of a state to raise a militia of citizens. These citizens would be expected to bring their own weapons that are in common use. In the US, the most popular and ubiquitous semi-automatic rifle by a vast margin, is the AR-15 with standard 20 and 30 round magazines. This is the civilian version of the military's M4/M16 rifle.

For the reasons I have stated here, this is and ought to remain the MOST protected arm in the land.

-Christopher J Hoffman
7/30/12

uyoga
07-30-2012, 8:21 AM
Scalia didn't state anything that wasn't already stated in Heller. Nothing new here.

sholling
07-30-2012, 9:47 AM
Interesting David Codrea article. There was some truth in it, but overall it was stupid garbage which should make anyone who has even a minimal understanding of 2A jurisprudence think he is a fool or ill-informed.
That's the difference between taking the constitution and the intentions of the framers seriously and modern constitutional jurisprudence. David Codrea is factually correct about what the framers intended with 2nd Amendment. Hint: Common use and man portable would have caused a lot of eye rolling. The intention was a population as well armed as the military. Modern constitutional jurisprudence takes a far more minimalist view of the rights of individuals. For example the 4th Amendment says nothing specifically about wiretaps or email (they didn't exist) so in the statist view of the minimalists they aren't protected nor are bank records or anything else outside the home and if congress were to decide to monitor every phone call and email that would be fine with them. In their limited view of individual rights you would need a separate no wiretapping/email monitoring amendment to secure private electronic communications. As Scalia said in the interview their is no right to privacy in the constitution - that's his view even though that was the clear intent of the 4th Amendment. Without the words "private communications" in the Bill Of Rights there is no right to private communications.

No one knows (including SCOTUS).

But there are some indications from last term that SCOTUS may have been interested in taking a carry case. That they did not seems to be an indication that they are waiting for a good civilian case. I believe we have those cases coming up for cert in the near future so the odds are pretty good that we have a carry case decided by July of 2013.
Scalia may be interested but after the Obamacare decision I think it'll be a big mistake to put a carry case before the Supreme Court before one of the Progressives is replaced with a genuine libertarian. The last thing we need is Roberts once again looking to CNN and MSNBC for guidance in how to rule in an important case. If Roberts joins with the Progressive wing again we could easily see bear limited to government agents or Heller reversed completely. For now I seriously doubt that the conservatives trust Roberts enough to take any carry case and I sure don't trust him enough to hand him another opportunity to tap dance around the constitution.

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 10:10 AM
Ummm. . . You have to understand that the 2A was restricting the federal government, not the states. Which means that the states were, indeed constitutionally free to regulate and/or outright ban firearms within their boundaries.

The 14th Amendment applied the BOR to the states as well but was gutted by some incredibly bad jurisprudence at the SCOTUS level. Net effect was that by accepted legal standards in 1997 the states were free to regulate the hell out of firearms unless their own state constitution or their citizenry prevented that.

Then we had Heller incorporate the 2A against the federal enclave. Then we had the McDonald decision actually incorporate the 2A against the states.

Up until McDonald the states did not have to respect the 2A. And in understanding where Scalia is coming from, Scalia authored the Heller opinion and concurred on the McDonald opinion.

To claim that a footnote in a 1997 book reflects the current judicial opinion of Justice Scalia when in 1997 he was acknowledging the legal reality of the time and was subsequently incredibly instrumental in changing that - is either ignorant or a deliberate distortion.

And on Roberts? I may disagree vehemently with his Obamacare decision, but I fail to see any substantial relevance to how he will subsequently rule in a RKBA case.

CBruce
07-30-2012, 10:37 AM
Scalia has been saying this for quite a while. It is also one of the reasons that CGF from day one has decided to go after LTC's first in this state as opposed to LOC. Gene has always said "some" regulation IS reasonable. Scalia IMHO simply is saying that "some regulation" IS reasonable.

Try not to put to much in his words in an interview, or put words or ideas into his mouth. He is a poker player when it comes to the other justices.

Some measure of reasonable regulation is reasonable. I see nothing reasonable about restricting weapons based laregely or solely on their physical appearance. Nor is it reasonable to create a classfiication and single out a particular type of weapon that is not statiscally proven to be used illegally more often or more dangerous for civilians to own.

Why do we hear so much about tests for citizens to excersise their right, but never hear about similiar tests for people looking to strip away those rights? When lawmakers are talking about the importance of needing laws to keep these 'automatic assault rifles with high-capacity clips out of the hands of criminals'...we have a mountain of misinformation to address before we can begin a conversation about what's a reasonable restriction.

taperxz
07-30-2012, 10:40 AM
Some measure of reasonable regulation is reasonable. I see nothing reasonable about restricting weapons based laregely or solely on their physical appearance. Nor is it reasonable to create a classfiication and single out a particular type of weapon that is not statiscally proven to be used illegally more often or more dangerous for civilians to own.

Why do we hear so much about tests for citizens to excersise their right, but never hear about similiar tests for people looking to strip away those rights? When lawmakers are talking about the importance of needing laws to keep these 'automatic assault rifles with high-capacity clips out of the hands of criminals'...we have a mountain of misinformation to address before we can begin a conversation about what's a reasonable restriction.

Where did Scalia assert your claim?

corrosively_armed
07-30-2012, 10:57 AM
Either Roberts is a 'Manchurian Candidate' type or someone got to him and threatened/scared him enough to rule the way he did. Why do you think either of those two things have changed or would be any different on a gun case? He's a traitor to the republican principles that put him in power. In the old days he would have been tarred and feathered as a tory.

Ummm. . . You have to understand that the 2A was restricting the federal government, not the states. Which means that the states were, indeed constitutionally free to regulate and/or outright ban firearms within their boundaries.

The 14th Amendment applied the BOR to the states as well but was gutted by some incredibly bad jurisprudence at the SCOTUS level. Net effect was that by accepted legal standards in 1997 the states were free to regulate the hell out of firearms unless their own state constitution or their citizenry prevented that.

Then we had Heller incorporate the 2A against the federal enclave. Then we had the McDonald decision actually incorporate the 2A against the states.

Up until McDonald the states did not have to respect the 2A. And in understanding where Scalia is coming from, Scalia authored the Heller opinion and concurred on the McDonald opinion.

To claim that a footnote in a 1997 book reflects the current judicial opinion of Justice Scalia when in 1997 he was acknowledging the legal reality of the time and was subsequently incredibly instrumental in changing that - is either ignorant or a deliberate distortion.

And on Roberts? I may disagree vehemently with his Obamacare decision, but I fail to see any substantial relevance to how he will subsequently rule in a RKBA case.

sholling
07-30-2012, 11:21 AM
Ummm. . . You have to understand that the 2A was restricting the federal government, not the states. Which means that the states were, indeed constitutionally free to regulate and/or outright ban firearms within their boundaries.

The 14th Amendment applied the BOR to the states as well but was gutted by some incredibly bad jurisprudence at the SCOTUS level. Net effect was that by accepted legal standards in 1997 the states were free to regulate the hell out of firearms unless their own state constitution or their citizenry prevented that.
I understand that perfectly and it's a fine example of the difference between taking the constitution and the intentions of the framers seriously and modern constitutional jurisprudence. It's also a perfect example of why Progressives have such a fetish for precedence. Precedent could best be described as a policy of placing past unconstitutional rulings above the actual text of the constitution and its meaning at the time of ratification. It's the idea that consistency is more important than the constitution itself and that bad rulings should be built on to create worse rulings rather than overturned and replaced with rulings that respect the constitution. That's the reason that the justices chose to reject the opportunity to bring back the POI clause of the 14th Amendment. Which of course makes the current court every bit as guilty as the court that originally read the POI clause out of the 14th Amendment because they did not want to see freed blacks armed.

Before the 14th Amendment the states could legally control speech, censor newspapers, and establish official state religions - as well as regulate the right to keep and bear arms. The 14th Amendment was meant to apply the Bill Of Rights and all of the natural rights, privileges, and immunities of free men and US citizenship to the states. Thus any and all precedence referring to local or state regulation of arms or those establishing an official religion or censoring political speech are without meaning, yet the court freely refers to them. Would we accept a state declaring an official religion and the fact that it was okay before the 14th Amendment as justification for continuing the practice? If you followed the RKBA limits discussed in the Heller reasoning then establishing an official community religion would perfectly fine because that was the precedent and custom that exited at the time of ratification of the BOR and were customs and policies blessed off by the Supreme Court when they tosses out the POI clause. Rather than fix the past defective ruling modern courts have instead chosen to employ linguistic contortionism to apply subsets of the first eight amendments to the states one at a time via the Due Process clause as the political winds allow.

And on Roberts? I may disagree vehemently with his Obamacare decision, but I fail to see any substantial relevance to how he will subsequently rule in a RKBA case.
The problem with Roberts' decision in the Obamacare case is that I don't think Roberts believes the hogwash that made up the justification for "it's a tax". He caved to pressure from the Progressive media plain and simple and if you think there was heavy pressure to find a way to bless off Obamacare then wait until you see the pressure that the media apply in support of banning carry, full capacity magazines, and mean looking guns. They smell the fear coming from him and will be all over him.

sreiter
07-30-2012, 11:34 AM
Scalia said the same thing in Heller. He gave a list of potential regulations, such as sensitive places, etc.

All he said here was the same regulations that existed in 1776 would apply. Like being hand held (people cant have cannon), certain places can be restricted, etc.

Dont understand how anyone one this board could be suprised by what he said

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 11:38 AM
Either Roberts is a 'Manchurian Candidate' type or someone got to him and threatened/scared him enough to rule the way he did. Why do you think either of those two things have changed or would be any different on a gun case? He's a traitor to the republican principles that put him in power. In the old days he would have been tarred and feathered as a tory.

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to understand this one.

I'm with the dissenters on the Obamacare case. Plus, legal aspects aside, I think Obamacare is horrifyingly badly designed as well as being vile in its effects.

But IIRC, Roberts has been long known to believe that part of his job is to maintain the political viability of SCOTUS and the judicial system somewhat more generally. Not the first Chief Justice to believe that and not the last.

So a case was presented to him which (if he'd voted as I wanted) would have resulted in lots of charges that the "conservatives" on the court are merely shills for the Republican agenda and could even have resulted in an attempt by Obama to pack the court as FDR threatened to do.

You want to have a nightmare scenario? Have Obama appoint another six justices. . . Your RKBA would evaporate like a pleasant daydream.

And if you tell me that Obama would have to get another term and wouldn't likely get another six appointments, do remember that the idea of 9 justices is not required by the Constitution. The idea of 9 justices seems to be a sort of tacit agreement which just cannot be broken short of a huge political problem - and killing Obamacare may have been the political excuse to pack the court and ensure that the Ginsburgs of the judiciary control our lives for decades to come.

The other thing to consider is that Roberts may be a minimalist constructionist (or something like that). So the idea as I understand it is that you simply read the relevant text/Constitution/case law and you take its meaning as fairly straightforward, and then you do the minimum judicial interference consistent with the Constitution and the law.

In this case, Roberts did a textual analysis and found that he could define the individual mandate as a tax. So he defined it as a tax and threw it back to the legislators and citizenry to take care of the question as to whether or not they really want a whole other (punitive) tax imposed upon them.

As a non-lawyer I disagree with Roberts. What's more I find it pretty amazing to have the controlling opinion carry the day with no one else really agreeing with the author. Four concurring who say Roberts is nuts and four dissenting and saying he is nuts.

But this is Roberts. It is the same Roberts who was in on Heller and McDonald. Roberts hasn't changed. The cases change, the circumstances change, but if you take the same judicial philosophy Roberts exhibited on the Obamacare case and apply it to Moore, for example, and I fail to see how this gives a win to the anti-liberty types.

I just don't see it.

Maybe some of the lawyer types can tell me how far off I may be? I strongly suspect I'm at least using some of the terminology incorrectly.

Mesa Tactical
07-30-2012, 11:44 AM
Scalia didn't state anything that wasn't already stated in Heller. Nothing new here.

Yeah, what's going on here? None of this is news.

And in any case, I never thought it was a good idea to pin your hopes for the preservation of civil rights on a man who does not believe in habeas corpus.

CBruce
07-30-2012, 11:45 AM
Where did Scalia assert your claim?

I wasn't implying Scalia personally made those claims.

Gray Peterson
07-30-2012, 11:46 AM
I'm sorry, but I'm trying to understand this one.

I'm with the dissenters on the Obamacare case. Plus, legal aspects aside, I think Obamacare is horrifyingly badly designed as well as being vile in its effects.

But IIRC, Roberts has been long known to believe that part of his job is to maintain the political viability of SCOTUS and the judicial system somewhat more generally. Not the first Chief Justice to believe that and not the last.

So a case was presented to him which (if he'd voted as I wanted) would have resulted in lots of charges that the "conservatives" on the court are merely shills for the Republican agenda and could even have resulted in an attempt by Obama to pack the court as FDR threatened to do.

You want to have a nightmare scenario? Have Obama appoint another six justices. . . Your RKBA would evaporate like a pleasant daydream.

And if you tell me that Obama would have to get another term and wouldn't likely get another six appointments, do remember that the idea of 9 justices is not required by the Constitution. The idea of 9 justices seems to be a sort of tacit agreement which just cannot be broken short of a huge political problem - and killing Obamacare may have been the political excuse to pack the court and ensure that the Ginsburgs of the judiciary control our lives for decades to come.

The other thing to consider is that Roberts may be a minimalist constructionist (or something like that). So the idea as I understand it is that you simply read the relevant text/Constitution/case law and you take its meaning as fairly straightforward, and then you do the minimum judicial interference consistent with the Constitution and the law.

In this case, Roberts did a textual analysis and found that he could define the individual mandate as a tax. So he defined it as a tax and threw it back to the legislators and citizenry to take care of the question as to whether or not they really want a whole other (punitive) tax imposed upon them.

As a non-lawyer I disagree with Roberts. What's more I find it pretty amazing to have the controlling opinion carry the day with no one else really agreeing with the author. Four concurring who say Roberts is nuts and four dissenting and saying he is nuts.

But this is Roberts. It is the same Roberts who was in on Heller and McDonald. Roberts hasn't changed. The cases change, the circumstances change, but if you take the same judicial philosophy Roberts exhibited on the Obamacare case and apply it to Moore, for example, and I fail to see how this gives a win to the anti-liberty types.

I just don't see it.

Maybe some of the lawyer types can tell me how far off I may be? I strongly suspect I'm at least using some of the terminology incorrectly.

The smart lawyers know that he's the same guy. Conservatives who are pissed off at Roberts need to stop trying to co opt the gun rights movement by them spreading FUD about our carry cases losing.

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 11:47 AM
.
.
.
The problem with Roberts' decision in the Obamacare case is that I don't think Roberts believes the hogwash that made up the justification for "it's a tax". He caved to pressure from the Progressive media plain and simple and if you think there was heavy pressure to find a way to bless off Obamacare then wait until you see the pressure that the media apply in support of banning carry, full capacity magazines, and mean looking guns. They smell the fear coming from him and will be all over him.

I understand your logic on this one and find it a little hard to disagree.

Except that the media pressure even after the Aurora, CO &%$#* really hasn't been all that great.

And you have to remember the beauty of what Gura and company are really doing.

They really aren't trying to have high-profile cases. They aren't trying to re-jigger an entire nationwide political structure at one fell swoop.

With Obamacare you had an entire system which had been revamped and voted on by both houses of congress and signed off on by Obama. Rolling this system back is costly and leaves you without an intact healthcare system. This would have been a major upheaval and a repudiation of the White House occupant as well as the Congress. And particularly since Obamacare is the signature work of Obama, it could be viewed as a particular attack on him.

The same political freight does not attach to the pending civil carry cases. They will not be nearly as high-profile.

sholling
07-30-2012, 12:25 PM
Conservatives who are pissed off at Roberts need to stop trying to co opt the gun rights movement by them spreading FUD about our carry cases losing.
That's a heck of an accusation when the facts don't support your "co opt" charge. The FACT that Roberts ignored the facts in the case and constitution to come to a POLITICAL decision just to please court critics on the hard left means that there is a very real danger of him doing the same thing on the 2nd Amendment. Pointing out that FACT is not co opting the 2nd Amendment rights movement it's just pointing out the very real danger that he'll fold under political pressure once again. Especially after a mass murder. You have to deal with reality and not wishful thinking.

I understand your logic on this one and find it a little hard to disagree.

Except that the media pressure even after the Aurora, CO &%$#* really hasn't been all that great.
That depends on where you get your news. The same outlets that screamed for support of Obamacare's individual mandate and got their way are screaming for gun control and just as loud. The only ones laying low are the Progressive politicians running for reelection and should they win they won't stay quiet for long after the election. But only time will tell.

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 12:41 PM
Do remember, however, that Gura and company are not working on the same thing as the Democrats are pushing to restrict.

Certain Democrats are pushing hard for magazine and ammo restrictions, not because they think they have even a snowball's chance in hell of passing the legislation but because they have an election in November and that plays well with their particular constituents.

But Gura and company are advancing civil rights litigation fairly unrelated to what those select Democrats are pushing.

They really aren't in the same ballpark.

Where you could have a collision would be if the pending cases were on California's ban on semi-automatic rifles. Then the case would directly relate to the current headlines.

But the current cases aren't about that. They are about the government stomping on the right of its citizenry to defend itself with a handgun.

Gray Peterson
07-30-2012, 12:42 PM
That's a heck of an accusation when the facts don't support your "co opt" charge. The FACT that Roberts ignored the facts in the case and constitution to come to a POLITICAL decision just to please court critics on the hard left means that there is a very real danger of him doing the same thing on the 2nd Amendment. Pointing out that FACT is not co opting the 2nd Amendment rights movement it's just pointing out the very real danger that he'll fold under political pressure once again. Especially after a mass murder. You have to deal with reality and not wishful thinking.


I deal with reality on a daily basis. There is no danger to the 2nd amendment coming from the current composition of the court. Hysterical statements like the above serves no one, & gives false impressions of political power to people who don't deserve it.

Gray Peterson
07-30-2012, 12:44 PM
Do remember, however, that Gura and company are not working on the same thing as the Democrats are pushing to restrict.

Certain Democrats are pushing hard for magazine and ammo restrictions, not because they think they have even a snowball's chance in hell of passing the legislation but because they have an election in November and that plays well with their particular constituents.

But Gura and company are advancing civil rights litigation fairly unrelated to what those select Democrats are pushing.

They really aren't in the same ballpark.

Where you could have a collision would be if the pending cases were on California's ban on semi-automatic rifles. Then the case would directly relate to the current headlines.

But the current cases aren't about that. They are about the government stomping on the right of its citizenry to defend itself with a handgun.

As I said in another thread:

Carry kills gun control dead.

Connor P Price
07-30-2012, 12:46 PM
As I said in another thread:

Carry kills gun control dead.

Wasn't that this thread?

:p

Gray Peterson
07-30-2012, 1:02 PM
Wasn't that this thread?

:p

Meh

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 1:02 PM
As I said in another thread:

Carry kills gun control dead.

I'm not going to disagree with you on that at all. Too many reasons to think that you are right.

Maestro Pistolero
07-30-2012, 2:10 PM
Certain Democrats are pushing hard for magazine and ammo restrictions, not because they think they have even a snowball's chance in hell of passing the legislation but because they have an election in November and that plays well with their particular constituents.I believe the backlash on this may be significant. Nothing fans the flames of paranoia like a real attempt to threaten freedoms.

bwiese
07-30-2012, 2:17 PM
I deal with reality on a daily basis. There is no danger to the 2nd amendment coming from the current composition of the court. Hysterical statements like the above serves no one, & gives false impressions of political power to people who don't deserve it.


Bingo.

California is the perfect example - we have a ton of CA Reeps that talk a good game on gunrights but who will not carry achievable incremental gun bills.

And then these POSes get bent outta shape when the CA NRA & CRPA lobbyists use gun-friendly Democrats to carry bills upward because they feel they should 'own' an issue.

Many of us are pretty convinced one CA supposed gun industry lobbyist is not really pro-gun but instead uses the gun issue to accompany her other clients she represents so as to have an entree into Republican circles.

Many politicians - of all stripes - love to have issues they "support" or "oppose" without having to do any effort to further support or oppose the issue. Our gunnie goal is to get these people to do the work they say they want to do...

corrosively_armed
07-30-2012, 2:20 PM
My first inclination is to say the only limitation on arms should be that which you can afford. The problem with this then is that if any arm is easily available no matter how expensive then evil people with a lot of money such as gangs and drug cartels will purchase those weapons and use them against law enforcement or the rest of us. The solution? Vigorously DESTROY gangs etc. Actually punish violent crime and theft of property. Until we do that which unfortunately gets into a racial issue nothing will ever happen and innocent people such as we gun owners will be continually blamed for crime when in actuality it is the criminals doing the killing! But again, to crush crime in a decisive absolute way would be so politically incorrect, deemed so racist and bigoted that it will never happen so instead we are left with so called 'common sense' gun control which is an effort to curtail the easy abundance of arms that the bad guys can get their hands on. In the process it disarms innocent people. It's a mad, mad world.

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 2:22 PM
I believe the backlash on this may be significant. Nothing fans the flames of paranoia like a real attempt to threaten freedoms.

It won't cause problems for the Democrats pushing the issue. It might hurt Obama and some of the Democrats in districts which are not "safe".

But I can pretty much guarantee that every Democrat legislator who is pushing for ammo and magazine restrictions figures it for a sure winner in their state or district.

dantodd
07-30-2012, 2:34 PM
Many of us are pretty convinced one CA supposed gun industry lobbyist is not really pro-gun but instead uses the gun issue to accompany her other clients she represents so as to have an entree into Republican circles.


Don't be coy, name her. I love when you talk dirty.

Uxi
07-30-2012, 3:19 PM
They said as much in Heller, so this shouldn't have been unexpected. They won't go for bans and prohibitions on entire classes, but very few of us think infringement means any regulation at all. I'm definitely more towards Constitutional/Vermont carry but have no problems with felons and the mentally ill being excluded.

taperxz
07-30-2012, 7:07 PM
LMAO!! What a bunch of bull hocky!

The epitome of reporting any which way someone feels irregardless of the truth.

taperxz
07-30-2012, 7:08 PM
Oh and :dupe:

vincewarde
07-30-2012, 7:22 PM
Wow...... well let's see:

Chris Wallace (whose political affiliation is known to me - a good thing in itself) is a good interviewer. He ALWAYS walks around an issue and asks questions that those with opposing views to the person he is interviewing holds. That's what he did here, and Scalia did a good job in his responses. It was a really good and informative interview.

Bill O'Riely is more of a populist than a conservative or a libertarian. I also do not know his political affiliation. He actually took time tonight to "clarify" his position tonight. About all he is in favor of is a reporting requirement on sales of semi-auto rifles. He explicitly said that he believe in the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

taperxz
07-30-2012, 7:29 PM
Wow...... well let's see:

Chris Wallace (whose political affiliation is known to me - a good thing in itself) is a good interviewer. He ALWAYS walks around an issue and asks questions that those with opposing views to the person he is interviewing holds. That's what he did here, and Scalia did a good job in his responses. It was a really good and informative interview.

Bill O'Riely is more of a populist than a conservative or a libertarian. I also do not know his political affiliation. He actually took time tonight to "clarify" his position tonight. About all he is in favor of is a reporting requirement on sales of semi-auto rifles. He explicitly said that he believe in the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms.

I think you need to read the article written on the site the OP posted with the video footage. The site is misrepresenting the facts. Scalia nor the R's are trying to call for more gun control.

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 7:50 PM
Bill Kristol is a conservative? O'Reilly is a conservative? OK, OK, they may be more conservative than Schumer, but I've just never really thought they were conservative. Maybe they are.

And then to mischaracterize what Scalia said?

Not good.

dfletcher
07-30-2012, 7:51 PM
Scalia's position on guns hasn't changed since he authored Heller and signed on to McDonald. Bill O'Reilly doesn't know enough about guns to direct an intelligent, informed conversation.

The magazine capacity bill is sponsored and signed on to by the usual Democrats in the Senate. No Republicans have signed on to the bill.

OleCuss
07-30-2012, 7:52 PM
Sorry, I didn't like my first response to your post. I'll try to be more appropriate.

But I'm pretty sure that when you were referred to this thread it was not with the hope that you would post that same link here.

I'm quite confident that it was intended that you read this thread and see that much of this topic has already been discussed. (Possibly ad nauseum? . . .)

gunsmith
07-30-2012, 8:13 PM
I saw the whole interview several times, Judge Scalia is not only brilliant legally but really funny too.

I only read the first part of the thread so I'm not sure if its been clarified but he did mention it was once a misdo to cause a "frighting" like if you carried a broad axe used in chopping heads off for the purpose of scaring people.

He also seemed to imply that carrying rocket launchers might be legal, certainly machine guns.

Despite what you might read on tinfoilwarsalexjonestown, the sky is not falling.

Stonewalker
07-30-2012, 8:37 PM
Bill Kristol is a conservative? O'Reilly is a conservative? OK, OK, they may be more conservative than Schumer, but I've just never really thought they were conservative. Maybe they are.

And then to mischaracterize what Scalia said?

Not good.

I don't know who Kristol is, but I know that O'Reilly is a sensationalist authoritarian A-hole who is payed to rile people up over the ways that liberals are different from conservatives.

"Liberals are different from us in this way too? I'm disgusted and you should be too!"

Ratings are ratings. I wish Fox News actually took it's journalistic charge seriously. They could do so much good.

sholling
07-30-2012, 9:53 PM
Wow...... well let's see:

Chris Wallace (whose political affiliation is known to me - a good thing in itself) is a good interviewer. He ALWAYS walks around an issue and asks questions that those with opposing views to the person he is interviewing holds. That's what he did here, and Scalia did a good job in his responses. It was a really good and informative interview.
In my opinion Chris Wallace is one of the best interviewers in the business. It doesn't matter of he's interviewing an R or a D he's tenacious.

Bill O'Riely is more of a populist than a conservative or a libertarian.
He's a Progressive and religious fanatic that would like to ban pretty much everything "for our own good". I wrote him a couple of times and addressed it to The Church Lady because that's who he is but for some reason he never read my note on the air. :p
I also do not know his political affiliation.
He claims to be registered as unaffiliated/independent.

He actually took time tonight to "clarify" his position tonight.
You can bet that the only reason that the arrogant !@#$ "clarified" his position is that his fans have been hammering his email by the tens of thousands and threatening to stop watching the show. He's the highest paid personality on Fox and you can bet he doesn't want that gravy train to slow down. The show is actually pretty responsive to feedback.

About all he is in favor of is a reporting requirement on sales of semi-auto rifles. He explicitly said that he believe in the 2nd Amendment's protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
Don't you believe it. I'm sure he's for limited possession of handguns and shotguns and hunting rifles but by permit only, and for may-issue type carry because he qualifies for both - but no carry for you and me. In O'Reilly's ideal world nothing, with the exception of going to church, would be legal without a license from government.

Bill Kristol is a conservative? O'Reilly is a conservative? OK, OK, they may be more conservative than Schumer, but I've just never really thought they were conservative.
I'm with you on that.

Stonewalker
07-31-2012, 1:26 AM
Oh my God... you are so right sholling - O'reilly really is the Church Lady. Godamnit... that is simultaneously funny and depressing. Hahaha... oh man.

Uxi
07-31-2012, 7:13 AM
I don't know who Kristol is, but I know that O'Reilly is a sensationalist authoritarian A-hole who is payed to rile people up over the ways that liberals are different from conservatives.

"Liberals are different from us in this way too? I'm disgusted and you should be too!"


He portrays himself as an "everyman" moderate/centrist, not a conservative.


Ratings are ratings. I wish Fox News actually took it's journalistic charge seriously. They could do so much good.

They do, relatively speaking. Like many, you're having trouble distinguishing the news arm from the opinion arm. O'Reily, for example, has never been news. He's opinion. Shepard Smith is news. Hannity is opinion. The opinion guys are the ones drawing the viewers (and thus advertising), so they purposely mix it together. MSNBC aped this almost entirely, though not quite as successful. Maddow isn't news, she's opinion. Olbermann used to think and pretend he was on the news side but was opinion. etc etc.

CDFingers
07-31-2012, 8:00 AM
Apparently originalists think that no right is absolute.

Moreover, apparently Scalia wrote about "reasonable" regulations, and so did Alito.

CDFingers

hawk1
07-31-2012, 8:26 AM
I asked to have this thread locked.
It's not going anywhere and now that someone has merged an infowars (whackjobs) link into it, it's only getting worse.