Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[Mr. Fife]

Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

 

July 29, 2012 | 10:03 a.m.

 

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 on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

 

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."

 

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

 

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. "You don't interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can't be a pig," said Scalia, of the court's decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. "There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax."

 

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. "My wife doesn't want me hanging around the house," he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. "Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo" what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.

[richp]

Hi,

 

As I see it, there's nothing new here if you've made a careful reading of Heller.

 

BTW, I've read his new book, "Reading Law" and it's absolutely great. I think I finally understand textualism, originalism, purposivism, and the Living Consitution.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

[lockman]

Hi,

 

As I see it, there's nothing new here if you've made a careful reading of Heller.

 

BTW, I've read his new book, "Reading Law" and it's absolutely great. I think I finally understand textualism, originalism, purposivism, and the Living Consitution.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

 

The only part I recognize about a living constitution is our ability to amend it! Not redefine the terms used within it or alter the way we interpret it based on modern changes in the perception of moral behavior, specifically topics such as what is offensive or politically correct. Changing the Constitution should always require super majority support over time. Time is our Constitutions friend.

[moparcardave]

When asked about firearms with a 100 round drum he said we'' see. I like where he said obviously the 2A applies to firearms you "bear." That rocket launchers that would bring airplanes woudln't. I bet the liberals were not happy with that word "bear"

[richp]

Hi Lockman,

 

To be clear, he's very much in the textualist/originalist category, and provides very strong arguments against the purposivism and Living Constitution philosophies.

 

FWIW.

 

Rich Phillips

[Sigma]

I don't think Justices should be doing these interviews. Criticizing another Justice seems tacky.

Lets say he gets a case on rocket launchers. Lets say the evidence is so that he has to rule in favor of allowing it. Does he try to keep to his words in some interview and not look like a fool...

[drdoom]

Ok, in my view, if we're to strictly interpret what we may or may not purchase/possess/carry, under the second amendment, I would start and end with anything which expels a bullet.

[belercous]

Thanks for the tip on "Reading Law." I'll be getting that from my library system. Keep in mind that legal scholars don't consider Scalia much of one. He has some outlandish opinions & he's kind of a joke on the Court. At least Thomas keeps his mouth shut.

 

Funny thing about Justice Thomas, everyone says he's the nicest & friendliest one on the bench. He also knows the name of everyone who works in the building by name, from the janitors on up. He also reads every petition for cert. which involves racial discrimination, he doesn't have his clerks give him a synopsis like every other Justice does. He rarely votes to hear such cases though.

[wilessiuc]

Thanks for the tip on "Reading Law." I'll be getting that from my library system. Keep in mind that legal scholars don't consider Scalia much of one. He has some outlandish opinions & he's kind of a joke on the Court. At least Thomas keeps his mouth shut.

 

Funny thing about Justice Thomas, everyone says he's the nicest & friendliest one on the bench. He also knows the name of everyone who works in the building by name, from the janitors on up. He also reads every petition for cert. which involves racial discrimination, he doesn't have his clerks give him a synopsis like every other Justice does. He rarely votes to hear such cases though.

 

4 years of college, 3 years of law school, and 6 years of practicing law, and never once have I heard of Scalia being a joke on the court. He actually has a reputation for writing brilliant, yet witty opinions, and is thought of as the intellectual on the right side of the court. Don't hate because you don't agree with his judicial philosophy!

[stm]

 

Funny thing about Justice Thomas, everyone says he's the nicest & friendliest one on the bench. He also knows the name of everyone who works in the building by name, from the janitors on up.

 

 

One of the measures of a man's character is how he treats the people he doesn't have to be nice to.

[Xwing]

I read that interview. It is nothing new; simply re-stating what was stated in Heller. The question really is "to what extent" it can be regulated. What standard will they hold it to?

 

Of course, the media is interpreting this as "we can regulate fireams almost out of existance"

[belercous]

Wile: You've read some of Scalia's opinons? At SLU Law Scalia was not taken seriously because of his extremist opinions, the hyperbole he often uses & how hateful they could be. Nino is a bit of a hothead. Hotheads are not taken seriously, especially when they serve in such an important capacity. I don't hate Scalia, I just don't have much respect for him.

 

Scalia's no dummy to be sure, but he has a way of expressing himself which many find impolite if not rude. Often his opinions (usually dissents) reflect poorly upon the Court.

 

STM: While I don't often agree with Justice Thomas, I must say that he seems like a genuinely good person. I would never assail his character.

[Howard Roark]

Of course, the media is interpreting this as "we can regulate firearms almost out of existence"

 

Haha, that's about right. And let's remember, to the Ants, "regulate" equals "ban". I was a little disappointed in Justice Scalia's use of "regulate" (I think he used that word). To the Ants, that word means "regulations" meaning "laws" including bans, instead of the definition of "to be well trained" or "operationally correct". Regulate as used by the Ant's is nothing more than an euphemism.

[tplane37]

Could it be possible that Scalia, and other Justices, actually intend to indirectly imply that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does permit a form of regulation on what Arms individual can bear, but not regulate what Arms an individual may own? Here's an example (slightly extreme for the purpose of clarity):

 

 

John Doe has the Right to own as many rocket launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, tanks, and chain guns (all fully functional and readily deployable) as he can possibly afford, and the government has no Power to interfere with this Right, or any Power to pass any Law that would infringe on John Doe's Right to keep (e.g. "own and possess) these Arms in and on his Private Property.

BUT, as a matter of Public Policy and for the "benefit" of the collective People, the Government has the Power to pass reasonable Laws that limit where and how he may bear (e.g. "take and/or brandish") these Arms, PROVIDED that the Government cannot pass any Law that would expressly prohibit John Doe from keeping and bearing any and all Arms in a respectable manner in Public, especially if that Arm is intended to primarily serve for the purpose of self-defense or to "bide time" for him to return to his Land in the unfortunate event that John Doe must take up Arms against an invading government (foreign or domestic).

 

 

 

Now, I do not intend to imply that I necessarily agree or disagree with the above scenario, but it seems to me that our Founding Fathers fully intended on the People being properly equipped to protect our Freedoms against a tyrant government or any invading military power at the drop of a hat, but at the same time, I believe that they were fully aware that there are going to be idiots in our country that cannot act responsibly. For one, I am fully aware of the fact that pistols were "legal" to carry in 1804, knowing that Alexander Hamilton died in New Jersey in a duel in which he lost. Now, this was our first Secretary of State, is it really logical to assume that he was willfully disregarding the Laws of the United States in challenging an opponent to a duel to defend his honor? Therefore, I find it hard to believe that our Founding Fathers ever had any intention of providing even an implied "loop-hole" that would allow the government to disarm the People, in fact, I think (I have not personally confirmed this as of yet) that dueling is still legal in the United States, and there is a specified procedure that must be followed for it to remain legal.

 

Enough with the rambling for now, just remember that anything you read in any media release, regardless of their particular stance on any subject, you have got to take it with a grain of salt. I am certain that 99% of what Scalia said in the aforementioned interview was omitted from the final press release... he may have actually explained himself in more detail, but that added detail won't add 'mystery' to the report, and therefore will sell less... it's all about the money in the media, regardless of the source.

[belercous]

What the hey!!!? Jefferson was our first Sec. of State. John Tyler was our 10th President. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. Burr was our 3rd V.P. Hamilton was never President, he was Sec. of the Treasury under Washington.

 

Again, What the hey!!!? Has history changed? The above post makes no sense.

[Talonap]

What the hey!!!? Jefferson was our first Sec. of State. John Tyler was our 10th President. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. Burr was our 3rd V.P. Hamilton was never President, he was Sec. of the Treasury under Washington.

 

Again, What the hey!!!? Has history changed? The above post makes no sense.

 

I don't usually agree with you, but in this case, you're right on! Thanks for the correction!

[tplane37]

What the hey!!!? Jefferson was our first Sec. of State. John Tyler was our 10th President. Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton. Burr was our 3rd V.P. Hamilton was never President, he was Sec. of the Treasury under Washington.

 

Again, What the hey!!!? Has history changed? The above post makes no sense.

 

You are correct. I'm not sure where I got that from or why I suggested it... Especially since Hamilton would have already died before our tenth President would have been elected.

 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[GWBH]

Funny thing about Justice Thomas, everyone says he's the nicest & friendliest one on the bench. He also knows the name of everyone who works in the building by name, from the janitors on up.

 

 

One of the measures of a man's character is how he treats the people he doesn't have to be nice to.

 

THAT is a significant mark of a leader...

[Federal Farmer]

You guys should read the biography of Hamilton, if you haven't.

 

At any rate, dueling was illegal in NY which is why the "interview" was held in NJ. Also, their second brought the pistols so that the participants could have deniability as to their homicidal motivations.

 

Oftentimes the intent was not to kill and supposedly Hamilton deliberately fired high. Sadly, he miscalculated as to how p***** Burr was. Hamilton pretty much made a job of trashing Burr's life so there must have been some denial there.