Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[DavieD55]

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scali...lated-20120729

By John Aloysius Farrell
Updated: July 29, 2012 | 8:27 p.m.
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.

[palepainter]

Hopefully, the only thing he was trying to achieve was trying to uphold the Constitution.

[buffalobo]

After reading/hearing several interviews recently of SCOTUS judges I question the motive of their rulings more than ever.

[theGinsue]

Sounds like infringment to me.

Definition of INFRINGE (from Merriam-Webster.com)

transitive verb
1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent>
2 obsolete : defeat, frustrate intransitive verb

: encroach —used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>

— in·fring·er noun

Examples of INFRINGE
They claim that his use of the name infringes their copyright.

1. Her rights must not be infringed.

Origin of INFRINGE
Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break — more at break First Known Use: 1513

[Sharpienads]

I wish he was more specific. When he says "U.S. legilatures", is he talking about local and state legislatures, or the federal legislature?

[Waywardson174]

I think this article has been blown way out of proportion bey everyone now touting Scalia as in favor of anti-gun legislation. Remember, there are basically two ways this guy could lose his seat; 1) he could be found in a holding a smoking gun standing over a dead body with 5 witnesses or 2) he could give an advisory opinion.

He is not allowed to state how he would vote if a particular case came before the court. Other than "I retire", only those words could potentially cost him his seat.

So lets take a look at what he said - "it will have to be decided in future cases". This statement is completely mundane. In the future, we will vote, is pretty much it. Two 2A cases since the Great Depression have come to the court, Heller and MacDonald. Both of these cases asked very specific and basic questions. Heller - can a federal district locally ban guns (answer - NO). MacDonald - is the 2A ruling in Heller incorporated against the states, restricting state and local government from absolute firearm bans (answer YES).

These are the gun precedents, plus a case that already says that regulating sawed-off shotguns is legal. But these are not the only precedents which apply. Federal Reporters abound with cases in which the Federal courts uphold state restriction on natural and inalienable rights. No right in America is unconditional.

Which leads us to statements 2 and 3 "we'll see, it will have to be decided" much the same as statement 1 and "They has some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne."

The opinion in Heller cited historic examples such as the Scottish Revolution when the English banned the possession of weapons as a precursor to open war. This context, with many others, provides Scalia with the backdrop of his Originalist (the article calls it "textualist) view of Constitutional rights. While this 3rd statement suggests that Scalia is likely to uphold some restrictions on firearms, (I'm guessing retaining NFA restrictions) there is no indication from these statements that Scalia has gone anti-gun.

Rather than some secret agenda against firearms, these statements suggest a continued respect and adherence to judicial ethics and judicial process. The next few cases that come down the line will be questions on specific restrictions (ie All California gun law)

When those issues come to the court, they will then be decided, just like he said. We cant tell, nor can he legally say, what he or any other justice will do, but after this guy spearheaded the rejuvenation of the debate, along with a well-buttressed defense of the personal 2A right of citizens, Scalia is hardly the enemy of gun-owners.

This article does not even begin to suggest otherwise. His statements are no more than the well-guarded musings made by any Supreme Court Justice in any interview ever.

[sniper7]

Sounds like they took the quotes they liked, put them in an order that makes Scalia a friend of the anti-gunners and put it up on the internet.

Just like they turn obamas words into comforting articles that gun owners should not be fearful of the POTUS doing anything to take away their rights.

Just like they make Romeny sound like a terrible person for being successful and making money.

Just like they reported Holmes was a tea party member, then an OWS member, then a terrorist, then a schizo, etc. etc. etc.

fuck the media.

[Byte Stryke]

Sounds like they took the quotes they liked, put them in an order that makes Scalia a friend of the anti-gunners and put it up on the internet.



fuck the media.

its exactly what happened and the Honorable Justice Scalia has told them as much

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scali...lated-20120729

Page Not Found

Sorry. The page you requested does not exist.
If you typed the address manually, please check for spelling and formatting errors.
If you encountered a broken link on NationalJournal.com, please report it to authentication@nationaljournal.com.
To continue, return to the home page or use the search field at right.

[sniper7]

its exactly what happened and the Honorable Justice Scalia has told them as much

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scali...lated-20120729

Smazin!

that is the word of the month. It combines "its amazing" to a simple "smazin"!

[CO Hugh]

I agree much ado about nothing.