TexasCHLforum.com

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.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-g ... d-20120729" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Isn't it strange how tragic actions of one person out of 350,000,000 can bring out the anti-gun people. A monster killed and injured 70, which while tragic, is 1 in 5,000,000 which is a .0000002 chance of being the victim. While violent crime numbers are greater, they still are statistically insignificant when talking about taking away American's freedom. I'm willing to take those odds to keep my rights and freedom, Honorable Judge Scalia!

Enemies. Foreign and Domestic.

sugar land dave wrote: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.

First, it's Assault Rifles, now Menacing Hand-held Weapons.

Seems we have now lost Scalia after Roberts backstabbed the folk over Obamatax ?

I watched the full interview. When asked about banning semi-automatic weapons with 100 rd magazines, Justice Scalia immediately equated the type of "frightening" hand held weapons that may be regulated to weapons such as hand held rocket launchers that could bring down aircraft. It was obvious to me that he was not equating semi-autos with more than 10 rds to that category. That said, he did not commit specifically to what could and could not be regulated at this time. I don't think he would support any further restrictions than what is in place now. MHO.

Scalia is our best friend on the court, but even in the DC decision, the Court including our friends recognized that there could be limitation to our 2d Amendment rights. Not that I like this position but the fact is Scalia and Thomas are the two best friends we have on the Court. We aren't going to get any better friends any time soon.

WildBill wrote:

sugar land dave wrote: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.

First, it's Assault Rifles, now Menacing Hand-held Weapons.

The wife can be quite menacing especially when she is holding a new cookbook recipe

Well, there goes the Majors..........
No more baseball bats!

Are these people truly as ignorant as what comes out of their mouths make them seem?

G26ster wrote:I watched the full interview. When asked about banning semi-automatic weapons with 100 rd magazines, Justice Scalia immediately equated the type of "frightening" hand held weapons that may be regulated to weapons such as hand held rocket launchers that could bring down aircraft. It was obvious to me that he was not equating semi-autos with more than 10 rds to that category. That said, he did not commit specifically to what could and could not be regulated at this time. I don't think he would support any further restrictions than what is in place now. MHO.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

G26ster wrote:I watched the full interview. When asked about banning semi-automatic weapons with 100 rd magazines, Justice Scalia immediately equated the type of "frightening" hand held weapons that may be regulated to weapons such as hand held rocket launchers that could bring down aircraft. It was obvious to me that he was not equating semi-autos with more than 10 rds to that category. That said, he did not commit specifically to what could and could not be regulated at this time. I don't think he would support any further restrictions than what is in place now. MHO.

, seconded.

I'm curios how the whole interview went. Did they "lead" him with any of the questions, for instance? Not that he's not sufficiently educated and trained enough to spot that sort of thing, but still...

Heartland Patriot wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

G26ster wrote:I watched the full interview. When asked about banning semi-automatic weapons with 100 rd magazines, Justice Scalia immediately equated the type of "frightening" hand held weapons that may be regulated to weapons such as hand held rocket launchers that could bring down aircraft. It was obvious to me that he was not equating semi-autos with more than 10 rds to that category. That said, he did not commit specifically to what could and could not be regulated at this time. I don't think he would support any further restrictions than what is in place now. MHO.

, seconded.

I'm curios how the whole interview went. Did they "lead" him with any of the questions, for instance? Not that he's not sufficiently educated and trained enough to spot that sort of thing, but still...

It's just typical liberal inverse of reductio ad absurdum. Instead of a reasonable sounding but ridiculous statement being extrapolated to its ultimate ridiculous conclusion, Scalia made a reasonable statement (about man-portable rocket launchers) and a liberal is extrapolating it to mean that the entire ridiculous liberal-imagined constitutionality of their gun-banning fantasy is true.

Liberals. If they weren't so dang dangerous they would be funny.....in a sort of "watching a drunk soil himself" sort of way.

Scalia has been a good servant to the Constitution during his time on the Court. However, he is in his seventies and God only knows how many more years he will serve. The Constitution means exactly what nine people say it means. We need to get the vote out for Romney and require him to appoint conservative, originalist, Justices.

CowboyEngineer wrote:Scalia has been a good servant to the Constitution during his time on the Court. However, he is in his seventies and God only knows how many more years he will serve. The Constitution means exactly what nine people say it means. We need to get the vote out for Romney and require him to appoint conservative, originalist, Justices.

This.

There are very few things that I disagree with Scalia on, and I am thankful for his steadfast conservatism. But I do worry about how much longer he'll be willing or able to serve. I have no doubt about his stated intentions, based on his wife wanting him out of her hair, but he's an old man. He could get sick or worse. We should be praying for him.

G26ster wrote:I watched the full interview. When asked about banning semi-automatic weapons with 100 rd magazines, Justice Scalia immediately equated the type of "frightening" hand held weapons that may be regulated to weapons such as hand held rocket launchers that could bring down aircraft. It was obvious to me that he was not equating semi-autos with more than 10 rds to that category. That said, he did not commit specifically to what could and could not be regulated at this time. I don't think he would support any further restrictions than what is in place now. MHO.

I think it's important to note what was really said, rather than what some of the new stations want people to think was said. Here's the actual words:

"Obviously, the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It's to keep and BEAR, so it doesn't apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be decided."

He's then asked - "How do you decide that if you're a textualist?"

"Very carefully" (as he laughed) - "My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."

ScooterSissy wrote: He's then asked - "How do you decide that if you're a textualist?"

"Very carefully" (as he laughed) - "My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time. They had limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne. So we'll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."

I don't think any SCOTUS justice would reveal how they may or may not rule on cases not yet brought before the court. I think Scalia gave an appropriate answer.