Scalia: Guns May Be Regulated
doofiegirl POTL~PWCM~JLA
2012/07/31 00:27:13
On Fox News Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia expressed his opinion that, while the Second Amendment does secure the right of the individual to keep and bear arms, there are certain reasonable limitations upon this right. http://www.westernjournalism.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated/
Read More: http://www.westernjournalism.com/scalia-guns-may-b...
Top Opinion
-
Nimitz 2012/07/31 01:17:10





















Everyone is suppose to be a citizen of this Country and have basically equal rights. So let's see what gun control eventually leads to even when it's enforced a piece at a time.
1. Will the Government law enforcement, bodyguards, etc.. still have guns? Yes...
2. Will the military still have guns? Yes.
3. Will State law enforcement and national guardsman still have access to guns? Yes.
4. Will County law enforcement still have guns? Yes.
5. Will City law enforcement still have guns? Yes.
6 Will criminals still have guns? Yes.
Then who in the heck isn't going to have guns? Woops, me, because I'm not in the above list and neither is million of other law-abiding citizens.....
What right do 9 people have that live comfortable lives with protected bodyguards, and are driven by their polical alligance to tell any citizen that is law-abiding that they can't own a gun for protection.
And, I'm not talking about rocket launchers, I'm talking about a pistol or shotgun, or a rifle.......
They’re riding on an emotional wave created by James Holmes, the suspected Aurora, Colo., movie-theater shooter who was charged with 24 counts of murder on Monday. As the courtroom proceedings in that case unfolded, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, took to New York's city hall to introduce legislation making it much harder for law-abiding citizens nationwide to purchase ammunition.
The liberal duo would restrict ammunition sales to licensed dealers and require buyers to show a photo ID at the time of purchase, effectively banning people from doing their shopping online. Also, the dealer would have to maintain detailed records for each ammunition sale and report anyone purchasing over 1,000 rounds.
This is going back to the bad old days of 1960s-era gun-control laws, which banned mail-order sales of ammo and required logs to be kept. These restrictions did absolutely nothing to help law enforcement, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms admitted when Congress repealed those provisions in 1986.
Mr. Lautenber...
They’re riding on an emotional wave created by James Holmes, the suspected Aurora, Colo., movie-theater shooter who was charged with 24 counts of murder on Monday. As the courtroom proceedings in that case unfolded, Sen. Frank Lautenberg, New Jersey Democrat, and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, New York Democrat, took to New York's city hall to introduce legislation making it much harder for law-abiding citizens nationwide to purchase ammunition.
The liberal duo would restrict ammunition sales to licensed dealers and require buyers to show a photo ID at the time of purchase, effectively banning people from doing their shopping online. Also, the dealer would have to maintain detailed records for each ammunition sale and report anyone purchasing over 1,000 rounds.
This is going back to the bad old days of 1960s-era gun-control laws, which banned mail-order sales of ammo and required logs to be kept. These restrictions did absolutely nothing to help law enforcement, as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms admitted when Congress repealed those provisions in 1986.
Mr. Lautenberg also wants to turn back the clock with a Senate vote this week reinstating a ban on “high-capacity magazines,” which he defines as any that hold over 10 rounds. The New Jersey Democrat wants to attach his bill to pending cybersecurity legislation, but his leader, Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, is opposed, knowing the political reality for his vulnerable members.
The Senate’s third-ranking leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, couldn’t restrain himself from taking to the floor Thursday to plead for more gun control: “Maybe, maybe, maybe we could pass some laws that might, might, might stop some of the unnecessary tragedies that have occurred.”
In a statement on his bill, Mr. Lautenberg said Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, among others, “publicly expressed acceptance or support for some form of gun regulation since the Colorado shooting.” That’s a rather fanciful interpretation of what Justice Scalia said on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend. Justice Scalia, who penned the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller decision striking down the District’s 30-year gun ban, said the ruling left open the possibility of limitations on guns.
“What the opinion in Heller said is that it will have to be decided in future cases — what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible,” said the justice. “My starting point and ending point probably will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had some limitation on the nature of arms that could be borne. So, we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.” He gave the example that cannons wouldn’t qualify because they aren’t carried by hand.
The shape of those future limitations will change should Mr. Obama win his last political election. The switch of a single vote would put Justice Scalia and the originalist interpretation of the scope of the Second Amendment in the minority. Millions of gun owners will have this in mind as November approaches
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NO BAMA 2012 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Freedom of speech does not give us the right to say anything we want whenever we want.
Similarly the right to keep and bear arms doesn't give every person the right possess or carry any type of weapon we want where ever we want.
Destructive Devices like Grenade Launchers have more restrictions on them, and I fail to see this as a problem.
The main thing is to ensure these limitations remain reasonable.
But did he mention, that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that *FELONS* are *LEGALLY EXEMPT* from all such registrations and regulations under Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968)?
Similar to the classic exmple of yelling fire in a crowded room, and reating a panic that gets people hurt.
As such having things like rocket and grenade launchers classified as Destructive Devices and regulating them is a reasonable infringement.
Right now the things regulated are pretty much just Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, Short Barreled Rifles & Shotguns, Suppressors, etc.
I don't see this as being unreasonable for the most part.
Though I would prefer we end this restriction on suppressors from a pure safety outlook. Many countries in Europe have laws requiring a suppressors for hunting to protect the shooters hearing. While I don't want it required, I fail to see the logic in forcing people to pay a $200 tax and register a suppressor.
We have mufflers on cars to reduce the noise, why not allow them on guns?
It would reduce noise complaints that are problems for shooting ranges.
If Your religion dictates human sacrifices, that activity isn't protected.
Free Speech has legal limitations. I can't stand in the street threatening to kill people.
Felons are prohibited from possessing firearms.
A Terry Stop where an officer pats you down to check for weapons isn't an illegal seizure.
This only become an issue when those infringements go beyond what is considered a reasonable limitation.
I don't see any such violation in requiring a more through background check on weapons like Grenade Launchers and Machine Guns.
I mean you can legally own a Tank with operational heavy machine guns mounted on it if you go through the proper paperwork and have the money to buy them.
I really don't see that as an infringement...
Or do you honestly believe anyone should be able to own a man portable nuke or chemical weapon?
So sorry, it's just not in my nature!