Quantcast

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...

You!
Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Frank 2012/08/26 05:03:51
    Frank
    +1
    There are already laws and limitations for fire arms on the books Federal, State and Local, hundres of laws, just enforce them, oh wait a minute you can't even enforce the one's on the books. ....His statement, reasonable limitations, what the heck does that mean. Here's the facts.

    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.......
  • Professor Wizard 2012/08/15 20:13:21
    Professor Wizard
    +2
    Once your government takes your guns.. your rights will follow.
  • doofieg... Profess... 2012/10/31 17:52:08
    doofiegirl  POTL~PWCM~JLA
    Our rights are being taken Now!
  • 4570GOVT 2012/08/13 03:04:58
    4570GOVT
    +1
    Democrats just couldn’t hold it together. With less than 100 days to go before the election, the left let slip its vision of a second term for President Obama that will be the end for the Second Amendment.

    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...









    Democrats just couldn’t hold it together. With less than 100 days to go before the election, the left let slip its vision of a second term for President Obama that will be the end for the Second Amendment.

    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 ! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    (more)
  • Ryan 2012/08/09 19:11:31
    Ryan
    +1
    The 2nd amendment like all the other rights recognized in the Bill of Rights have certain reasonable limitations on them

    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.
  • 4570GOVT 2012/08/09 16:37:21
    4570GOVT
    +1
    His response was - A General Answer Saying That " SOME REGULATIONS " may be necessary THEN went on to state weapons which are " already banned " ( rocket launchers , etc. ) . I think it was just a deflection of the question being asked . Scalia has always been a defender of the 2nd. Amendment in the past .
  • Marvelous Wildfire 2012/08/08 13:39:06
    Marvelous Wildfire
    +2
    Interesting.
    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)?
  • 4570GOVT Marvelo... 2012/08/09 16:40:13
    4570GOVT
    +2
    THAT is true , and not many people are aware of that . It would VIOLATE THEIR 5th. Amendment Rights ......... So They Are EXEMPT From Registration , Etc.
  • Marvelo... 4570GOVT 2012/08/09 21:54:58
    Marvelous Wildfire
    +1
    That's it exactly!
  • Don Leuty 2012/07/31 06:46:17
    Don Leuty
    +1
    Scalia has made many "Yes, but..." decisions.
  • Technotrucker_exposingthetruth 2012/07/31 03:26:48
    Technotrucker_exposingthetruth
    +2
    So again, we have another moron that does not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed". Someone needs to walk around and hit these idiots upside the head with a giant copy of Webster's, the hard back copy!
  • I. Car Rus 2012/07/31 01:28:42
    I. Car Rus
    +1
    Pretty strange. Scalia is about as far right as you can get an not live in a bunker.
  • jody.cotton3 2012/07/31 01:21:27
    jody.cotton3
    +2
    just try and take my guns,,,i think i will win,,,,,
  • Nimitz 2012/07/31 01:17:10
    Nimitz
    +3
    I was wondering how long it'd take somebody to post this. :-)
  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/07/31 00:34:49
    Rusty Shackleford
    +3
    So "reasonable" infringements are permitted under the Constitution?
  • Striker Rusty S... 2012/07/31 00:41:08
    Striker
    +3
    A good match for "fair share" huh?
  • Ryan Rusty S... 2012/08/09 19:04:31
    Ryan
    +1
    Yes for example, threatening to kill someone, etc is not protected as free speech.

    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.
  • Rusty S... Ryan 2012/08/09 21:54:25
    Rusty Shackleford
    +1
    So our right to keep and bear arms should be infringed?
  • Ryan Rusty S... 2012/08/10 17:45:00
    Ryan
    There are infringements on every single one of our rights.

    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?
  • Striker 2012/07/31 00:33:09
    Striker
    +2
    Obviously Scalia skipped the part, "shall not be infringed". But watch out, Scalia is among our "Rulers" now.
  • Rusty S... Striker 2012/07/31 00:35:46
    Rusty Shackleford
    +3
    And you will treat him with the proper respect, now take a knee and kiss his ring.
  • Striker Rusty S... 2012/07/31 00:40:19
    Striker
    +2
    How long before I'm supposed to begin respecting?
    So sorry, it's just not in my nature!

News & Politics

2013/05/24 11:51:38

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals