Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Justice Scalia On The Second Amendment, and The Constitution

  1. #1
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278

    Justice Scalia On The Second Amendment, and The Constitution

    I suppose what I would like to start with is Justice Scalia stating that there are Constitutional limitations that can be imposed on the exercise of the Second Amendment:

    He said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are."
    And then we are told that Justice Scalia is a Strict Constituionalist, basically, he Interprets the Constitution based on what is derived from the Original Intent. Okay, I can go for that:

    Scalia - a proponent of the idea that the Constitution must be interpreted using the meaning of its text at the time it was written - cited "a tort called affrighting" that existed when the Second Amendment was drafted in the 18th century making it a misdemeanor to carry "a really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax."

    Then he goes on to describe what appears to be, even though he is a firm believer in Original Intent, to describe how the Right To Bear Arms can be infringed:

    "So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," he said. "I mean, obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to 'keep and bear' (arms). So, it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be ... decided."
    And then we have a bit of a side-note regarding the title of his book, which is rather generally entitled. Or did he intend for it to be?:

    Supreme Court justices rarely give media interviews. Scalia is making the rounds to promote "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts," a new book he co-wrote.
    I was under the impression that the Constitution is not Interpretive. And yet we have a die-hard Conservative Justice who Linguistically is describing the Act of placing a Law to the Constitution as Interpretation.

    The link: http://news.yahoo.com/justice-scalia...201206215.html
    Last edited by Beretta92FSLady; 07-29-2012 at 08:48 PM.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  2. #2
    Activist Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ashland, KY
    Posts
    1,847
    They will never understand the most basic of texts. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED! The amendment says, "...to keep AND bear...," it does not mean we can only keep arms that are capable of being carried, it means the Federal government can not infringe upon our right to KEEP arms, or BEAR arms. It amazes me how our very own Supreme Court justices are incapable of interpreting a very simple document. This is just like the Commerce Clause. They have used this one small clause as the basis to destroy the entire limits placed on the Federal government. KEEP "'"'"AND"'"'" BEAR! Come on Scalia, get a clue!
    Last edited by KYGlockster; 07-29-2012 at 09:05 PM.
    "I never in my life seen a Kentuckian without a gun..."-Andrew Jackson

    "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."-Patrick Henry; speaking of protecting the rights of an armed citizenry.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Long gone
    Posts
    2,575
    Scalia did not say what those restrictions might be. Not allowing felons and mentally ill people to have firearms are restrictions.

  4. #4
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Orphan View Post
    Scalia did not say what those restrictions might be. Not allowing felons and mentally ill people to have firearms are restrictions.
    If a person cannot be trusted with a tool (firearm), they probably should not be walking free in society. This includes felons and those with Mental Illness.

    The only laws we need are ones against criminal use of weapons which can include murder, robbery, etc. etc.

    All other restrictions designed to infringe possession are against the 2nd Amendment.

  5. #5
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    If a person cannot be trusted with a tool (firearm), they probably should not be walking free in society. This includes felons and those with Mental Illness.

    The only laws we need are ones against criminal use of weapons which can include murder, robbery, etc. etc.

    All other restrictions designed to infringe possession are against the 2nd Amendment.
    Felons, particularly non-violent Felons ought be able to purchase, and own firearms...and vote.

    I am not sure what degree of Mental Illness ought to be included in a bar from owning, and purchasing firearms.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  6. #6
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by Beretta92FSLady View Post
    Felons, particularly non-violent Felons ought be able to purchase, and own firearms...and vote.

    I am not sure what degree of Mental Illness ought to be included in a bar from owning, and purchasing firearms.
    From your comment I would like to clarify what I meant because I think we are in agreement.

    If a person is a felon, and they have done their time and are "rehabilitated" and are going to be released, they should get their rights back after a reasonable probationary period. This includes the right to bear arms and vote.

    If a person is Mentally Ill and a danger to society to the point that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should be institutionalized until they are not a danger to others.
    Last edited by rscottie; 07-29-2012 at 10:51 PM.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    If a person cannot be trusted with a tool (firearm), they probably should not be walking free in society. This includes felons and those with Mental Illness.
    Quote Originally Posted by rscottie View Post
    If a person is a felon, and they have done their time
    <cut>
    they should get their rights back
    <cut>
    This includes the right to bear arms and vote.

    If a person is Mentally Ill and a danger to society to the point that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should be institutionalized until they are not a danger to others.
    Yes. It's past time, IMHO, that rights ought be respected and many laws be tested. We're pretty far down the slippery slope... too far already.

  8. #8
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787

    All limitations are infringements

    "He (Justice Scalia) said the 2008 ruling stated that future cases will determine "what limitations upon the right to bear arms are permissible. Some undoubtedly are."
    Our Second Amendment: "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Keep means "possess" and bear means "carry," so in more modern vernacular it's "...the right to possess and carry arms shall not be infringed."

    Is a limitation an infringement? It could be, depending on the nature of the limitation. Let's say a law was passed prohibiting the carry of orange or pink firearms due to the possibility that LEOs might mistake them as toy guns. If you only firearm is orange, and you can't afford to refinish it in a different color, does that materially infringe on your right to keep (possess) the arm? No. Does it infringe on your right to carry it? Absolutely. It's a monetary infringement, because you would be prohibited from carrying it until you refinished it, but you can't afford to refinish it.

    What about magazine capacities, if they didn't grandfather it so that you could continue to carry more than 10 rounds provided the firearm was made before the law passed. That's still an infringement, as it's restricting your ability to carry an amount of ammunition you deem necessary for self-protection.

    What about allowing known violent felons or mentally inept people access to firearms? Yes, those are infringements, too, but ones I do believe we should keep in place. The slippery slope is that if we allow restrictions for these folks, the next step is gun registration to ensure no one "dangerous" is legally allowed to own firearms, or only those who're "loyal to the state (country)," etc.

    Sound like Hitler to you? It does to me.

    I prefer the old fashioned way: Let the criminals have their guns. They're outnumbered 20:1 anyway, so in short order they'll be a lot less of them. As for the crazies, there's another approach than putting a firearms restriction into law. Simply make them either wards of a competent relative/adult or a ward of the state. This is already done today, and has been for well over 100 years. It's like being younger than 18 again - they cannot legally enter into contracts, and usually can't even carry their own ID, precisely to help ensure they don't go around doing things like buying firearms.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    358
    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    What about allowing known violent felons or mentally inept people access to firearms? Yes, those are infringements, too, but ones I do believe we should keep in place. The slippery slope is that if we allow restrictions for these folks, the next step is gun registration to ensure no one "dangerous" is legally allowed to own firearms, or only those who're "loyal to the state (country)," etc.
    My problem with such infringements is how government has ran with and twisted things that appear to be common sense restrictions. What about those of us that have suffered PTSD but are clearly competent? We're possibly next to be selected for special infringement in today's political climate. No, government has lost my trust to remain within reasonable bounds. If a felon is violent then, I'd suspect, sentencing should reflect the reality and restrictions on self defense should be reasonably limited enough that it's a fair bet that a violent felon will not survive their next violent escapade.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    I prefer the old fashioned way: Let the criminals have their guns. They're outnumbered 20:1 anyway, so in short order they'll be a lot less of them.
    Yes! I'll take responsibility for my own safety and retain my freedom. Well stated, since9.

    Quote Originally Posted by since9 View Post
    As for the crazies, there's another approach than putting a firearms restriction into law. Simply make them either wards of a competent relative/adult or a ward of the state. This is already done today, and has been for well over 100 years. It's like being younger than 18 again - they cannot legally enter into contracts, and usually can't even carry their own ID, precisely to help ensure they don't go around doing things like buying firearms.
    and yes!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    3

    Amendment II

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


    Obviously the founders of this country knew there were dangers and there would always be dangers. They wanted the citizens to protect the country, protect themselves, protect each other.

    We must remember that the founders of this country were descendants of people who came from areas which had a history of being overrun by foreign armies or by their own leaders. They wanted us to have a militia, they wanted us to be armed. Today, our militias are our military and law enforcement. Even with all that, there is still a chance we could be invaded by a foreign power, by our own fellow citizens, and our leaders.

    The big argument about the 2nd amendment's 'lack of clarity' are its commas. If it read, " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", we'd expect there not to be a problem, but wait... What about our lack of militias these days? What about our leaders desire to tear apart every law?

    Good grief. Such nit-picking. It's plain the early citizens were allowed to have weaponry. So what's the argument? "We don't have militias these days." Gag me. Isn't that more of a reason for the citizens to be armed?

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    I do wish The Powers That Be would pay attention to the underlined portion above. What part of "people to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" don't they understand? Did the early citizens have to go through this?
    Last edited by SixGunGal; 07-30-2012 at 02:37 AM.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Beretta92FSLady's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    In My Coffee
    Posts
    5,278
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunGal View Post
    [snippers] Did the early citizens have to go through this?
    Welcome to the forum. In answer to your question: Yes.
    I don't mind watching the OC-Community (tea party 2.0's, who have hijacked the OC-Community) cannibalize itself. I do mind watching OC dragged through the gutter. OC is an exercise of A Right. I choose to not OC; I choose to not own firearms. I choose to leave the OC-Community to it's own self-inflicted injuries, and eventual implosion. Carry on...

  12. #12
    Regular Member rscottie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Ashland, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    613
    Quote Originally Posted by SixGunGal View Post
    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


    Obviously the founders of this country knew there were dangers and there would always be dangers. They wanted the citizens to protect the country, protect themselves, protect each other.

    We must remember that the founders of this country were descendants of people who came from areas which had a history of being overrun by foreign armies or by their own leaders. They wanted us to have a militia, they wanted us to be armed. Today, our militias are our military and law enforcement. Even with all that, there is still a chance we could be invaded by a foreign power, by our own fellow citizens, and our leaders.

    The big argument about the 2nd amendment's 'lack of clarity' are its commas. If it read, " A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", we'd expect there not to be a problem, but wait... What about our lack of militias these days? What about our leaders desire to tear apart every law?

    Good grief. Such nit-picking. It's plain the early citizens were allowed to have weaponry. So what's the argument? "We don't have militias these days." Gag me. Isn't that more of a reason for the citizens to be armed?

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    I do wish The Powers That Be would pay attention to the underlined portion above. What part of "people to keep and bear arms" and "shall not be infringed" don't they understand? Did the early citizens have to go through this?
    There is no lack of militia today.

    The militia is every law abiding citizen that can bring their own privately owned firearm that they maintain and assist in times of need or in times of duress. This could be for anything from civil unrest, natural disasters, prison breaks, and, as a last resort, to stop an oppressive government.

    I am the militia, you are the militia, WE ARE THE MILITIA!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •