heres a link i found interesting...
While I have no place to store one, and am pretty sure that carrying one inthe trunk would really effect gas mileage, I would like to have my very own thermonuclear device. If I can;t have one of them, I want a tank.
I'm pretty sure that stuff like that will always be regulated from several directions. Firearms now controlled by the NFA may some day be relieved of that oppressive level of regulation. Felons, those declared a danger to themself or to others, and underage persons will probably continue to be regulated from possessing firearms. Not being allowed to bring firearms into places like prisons will probably not be changed.
But that leaves a large chunk of regulations open for discussion. As 49 states have figured out, letting people carry concealed does not automatically create chaos and shootouts over parking spots. Allowing folks to carry (OC and/or CC) in places where booze is consumed does not mean there will be any meaningful increase in the number of shootings in bars/lounges/restaurants. The more people who carry to church seems to work out to the fewer folks winding up getting shot at church.
So, yes, I too anticipate changes in the regulation of firearms.
"He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man
Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.
"No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
You will not rise to the occasion; you will fall back on your level of training.” Archilochus, 650 BC
Old and treacherous will beat young and skilled every time. Yata hey.
I always took it to mean that Scalia is pointing at people with mental disorders, felons, etc cannot possess guns. And he seems to lean that some gun-free zones are OK.
I have read much of Mr. Scalia talks about and his writings. He is not as pro-gun as I would like but him & Thomas are the two best gun advocates on the bench.
Antonin Scalia and 2nd Amendment Decision, L.A Times, 06/27/2008.
Justices affirm gun rights.
THE 2ND AMENDMENT: KEY RULING ON THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
In a historic 5-4 ruling, the high court says the 2nd Amendment protects individuals' right to bear arms.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled for the first time that the 2nd Amendment explicitly protects Americans' right to own guns for self-defense -- resolving one of the Constitution's oldest disputes and reviving the debate over gun rights, crime and violence.
The landmark decision struck down a District of Columbia ordinance, the strictest in the nation, that barred homeowners from keeping handguns. The ruling brought immediate court challenges to similar laws in Chicago and San Francisco.
In a 5-4 decision, the court said that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is not limited to state militias, as some historians have argued. Rather, it protects "the inherent right of self-defense," Justice Antonin Scalia said. Joining him in the majority were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
The four dissenters -- Justices John Paul Stevens, Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter -- said the majority had unwisely opened the door to legal attacks on popular and effective gun-control measures. "I fear that the District's policy choice may well be just the first of an unknown number of dominoes to be knocked off the table," Stevens wrote in his dissenting opinion.
Scalia stressed that the decision, though historic, was narrow and its practical effects limited.
"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places, such as schools and government buildings," he wrote. The majority opinion also said that prohibitions on carrying concealed or dangerous and unusual weapons, such as machine guns, were not in doubt.
Scalia did not say how 2nd Amendment rights were to be evaluated. "Since this case represents this court's first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field," he wrote.
Gun rights advocates Thursday made it clear that they would pursue more legal challenges, providing ample opportunity for the high court to revisit the issue.
"It looks to be a phenomenal day for gun owners and District of Columbia residents," said Wayne LaPierre, chief executive of the National Rifle Assn. "The next step is to ensure that every American has access to this right."
Gun control advocates, however, took heart in the fact that the ruling left room for some gun regulations.
Scalia spent most of his 64-page opinion explaining why history was on his side. He cited the Stuart kings of England and how they had used their militias to disarm their opponents. "By the time of the founding [of this country], the right to have arms had become fundamental for English subjects," he said. "There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms."
But in his 46-page dissent, Stevens accused Scalia of misreading the words of the 2nd Amendment and spinning its history to ignore its focus on organized militias.
IMHO, Justice Scalia is playing THE Political Chess Match of his lifetime.
His motive is,,,, Positioning himself for the upcoming Presidential Election, so when the time comes, HE will be in the spotlight about the 2nd Amnd. just as Chief Justice Roberts was concerning ObamaCare.
Justice Scalia is just a pawn in the Political Game of LIFE and he wants to make certain that he leaves a legacy worth talkin' 'bout for a long time after he leaves the bench.
DO NOT FORGET THIS OBAMA QUOTE !!!
2008 Democratic primary debate in Philadelphia, April 16, 2008: on Gun Control
Barack Obama: Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don’t have guns in their hands. ( HA !!! Like that will EVER Really happen !)
We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. (i.e., Fort Hood shooting was a shooting that took place on November 5, 2009. The sole suspect is Nidal Malik Hasan, a U.S. Army Major serving as a psychiatrist.
We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets. (i.e., President Barack Obama & the Department of Justice's Operation Fast and Furious gun-running program.) =*** Obama Executive Privilege Asserted Over Fast And Furious Documents *** !!!
Obamas *common sense* ain't to common
Last edited by scott58dh; 07-30-2012 at 01:24 AM.
why was this thread moved here? but another one about the same thing stayed over in the political section?? i swear.. this place makes NO sense.
Scalia's position on the 2A can be seen in the Heller decision. Its legal to 'own' firearms, but you have to follow a 17 step process, wait years, pay close to 500$ and jump through more hoops than you can imagine to even take possession.
This sort of thing why the anti-federalists were skeptical of allowing the national government to decide what everyones rights are by a handful of life time govt appointed lawyers in black robes.
Let us not forget until the 14A and incorporation did the national government even have a right to rule on the BOR's provisions as they applied to the states. The BOR was a restriction on FEDERAL power, not state power.
Last edited by brutus1776; 07-30-2012 at 04:10 PM.
You'd get a ticket for being over weight, damaging the roadway, or not maintaining highway speeds.If I can;t have one of them, I want a tank.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.
"Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare
Brutus1776 is right again.
Remember what Scalia penned in the ill-fated Heller decision (I wish it had gone the other way):
"A few paragraphs later Scalia elaborates a bit on the implied limitations of the "right" he describes. Insisting that previous Court rulings effectively limit "the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes," he asserts: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.... Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those 'in common use at the time' finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons." (Emphasis added.)[/b]
See the rest: http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w32.html
Scalia is a collectivist of the highest order and he is no friend of the 2A but then again what state jurist is? ALL of them act as if the last four words in the second clause of the 2A do not exist.
Gun Control is Mind Control.
My Blog: http://zerogov.com/