Respectfully submitted by Lawrence Rafferty (rafflaw) Guest Blogger
I have discussed the Second Amendment and the difficulties I have in allowing citizens to own semi-automatic weapons and large capacity clips of ammunition in the past, but Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, in a recent Fox News interview, just took my concern over semi-automatic weapons and shot it down.. with a shoulder firing rocket!
“Referring to the recent shooting in Aurora, CO, host Chris Wallace asked the Supreme Court Justice about gun control, and whether the Second Amendment allows for any limitations to gun rights. Scalia admitted there could be, such as “frighting” (carrying a big ax just to scare people), but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind. According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right to “bear arms”:
WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We’ll see. 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 here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully.” Think Progress
OK. I get it now. Under Justice Scalia’s originalist reading of the Constitution, he might not allow you to carry a big Axe around to frighten people, but a shoulder firing rocket launcher might be legal! At what point do we decide that public safety just might trump a radical reading of the Constitution? This is the same justice that opined in the District of Columbia v. Heller case that reasonable restrictions to the Second Amendment might be allowed by the Court. Heller
Maybe Justice Scalia needs to see the photos of the carnage a semi-automatic weapon or a shoulder fired rocket launcher can create. Under this thinking, RPG’s might be legal for all citizens to own and carry. Grenades can be hand-held and therefore under Justice Scalia’s warped sense of thinking, they too might be legal for citizens to carry. Do we draw the limit at briefcase nukes that can be carried in one’s hand?
Obviously the theory that Justice Scalia is promoting can be carried to extreme and hilarious lengths. The real scary part is that Justice Scalia doesn’t understand how hilarious and dangerous his concepts are in the real world. I am also confused why Scalia is allowed by Chief Justice Roberts to go on Fox News and opine about issues that just may end up in front of the Supreme Court. Isn’t this interview evidence that Justice Scalia has already made up his mind on the issue of other portable weapons?
What do you think of these comments by Justice Scalia and does his concept of originalism go too far? Since Justice Scalia thinks that these kind of weapons may be legal, is it too far-fetched to wonder if the current crop of right-wing Militia’s are free to purchase these kind of weapons, even if they hope to use them against the government?
Additional Reference: Prof. Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago
We citizens have to bear arms not only to defend against the Canadians coming across the border, but to quell a takeover by some homegrown takeover artists such as the Koch Brothers and Romneycare givers. A hand held rocket launcher does not seem to be an extreme weapon and it is what is needed to keep the Koch Brothers at bay, whether they be in Bay Saint Louis or Bay of Biscay.
OS,
Thanks for the history lesson……I do mean this with all sincerity….
Raff, some rocket launchers are reusable launch tubes, such as the famous Bazooka of WW-II. Some are one time, “fire and throw away” weapons.
The rocket is just the propulsion. The real weapon is the warhead. The rocket engine on many rocket weapons burns out quickly, after which it is a ballistic projectile. Kind of like the watermelon or pumpkin after it leaves the barrel of the launcher.
I share your dream OS!
Getting back to the original question posed, Justice Scalia appears to be living in an alternate universe. I would love to see him retire from the court to go on a much more lucrative speaking tour. Write a book, make speeches to selected audiences, go for long walks. Not likely, but one can dream.
What Mayfly said, plus……
We don’t need pre-judgements. We don’t need him to promote weapon carrying or use. We don’t need a nitwit, however “brilliant” he is.
Someone said; God help us if we should get a President who is an strict idealist (in contrast to the usual type). He could in his eargerness to do the right thing lead us into disaster.
Unfortunately, at this point, it looks like both types will sink us.
I’m coming out of the closet. Romney for clown.
Jo,
The breech loading rifle was invented well before the American Revolution by a Scotsman named Patrick Ferguson. Major Ferguson was killed at the Battle of Kings Mountain in October 1780. It was not in wide use because the industrial machine tools of the day were not capable of mass producing it. That is probably a good thing for the Revolution. It was made in too few numbers to influence the outcome of the war. The breech loading rifle was a much better weapon than the muzzle loaders of the day. The founding fathers who wrote the Constitution knew all about Major Ferguson and his rifle.
In those days, practically every gunsmith in the world was in an arms race (pun intended) to be the first to build a workable repeating rifle. The founding fathers knew about that too, and from what I have read, saw the value of that effort. Finally, in 1849 Walter Hunt patented a repeating rifle he called “the Volitional Repeater.” Revolvers had already been invented, but a revolver cylinder did not work very well in a rifle because the gases expelled with each shot was too close to the shooter’s face.
OS,
Was that a Scalia designed pumpkin chucker? Secondly, the rocket is just the ammo for the launcher, isn’t it? Both can and are carried by one man in the military.
Suffer fools not gladly……
Roman Berry,
One only has to see the amount of the damage done by a semi-automatic weapon with a large capacity clip as was used in Aurora, Colorado to know it is more lethal than one without the large clip.
grathuln,
I am not suggesting that the 2nd amendment should be done away with. I am only asking how far will Scalia go and that reasonable people may agree that using originalism in reviewing 2nd Amendment cases may be a faulty approach.
I believe the Swiss are required to keep a fully automatic rifle and so many rounds of ammunition. Every Swiss a rifleman. And they are expected to re-qualify yearly.
If it is good enough for the Swiss it ought to be good enough for us since we have a Constitution which allows us to do just that. I am pretty sure the founders would agree that if you have access to weapon superior to a flintlock then by all means use it. They didnt limit arms to a 16th century matchlock after all.
Speaking as someone who’s lived in the USA and who is from the UK, the other extreme of the gun control spectrum, I feel that the USA would do itself a disservice if it got rid of the 2nd amendment. I feel the only reason the state does not want citizens to have weapons is to lessen the chance of the citizens rebelling against the state. There are numerous example of this in history, especially in China.
“but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind.”
I don’t think they had glocks or magnums or semi any things in the 18th-Century
So by that way of thinking everyone has the right to bear a musket. (I think rifles were just about to be invented but may have already been so cut em a break single shot ball and powder rifles a la Sharpe’s Rifles)
As JT suggests, will Justice Scalia recuse himself when, inevitably, these very questions arise before the Supreme Court. Just as inevitably, I believe he will argue his comments do not require that.
My life doesn’t permit me to have it both ways; perhaps Justice Scalia lives in another reality.
There is a difference between a rocket launcher and the warhead. The rocket warhead is classified as “ordnance” and is not “arms” under the Second Amendment. A rocket launcher is basically a tube with a sight and trigger mechanism.
There are rocket hobbyists who can buy their rocket supplies from he local hobby shop. It is not illegal to fire rockets as long as they do not run afoul of FAA restrictions.
As for launching projectiles, has anyone seen the “Punkin’ Chunkin’ ” show on TV? Some of those things could bring down a low-flying airplane if they had the aim right.
This video shows the Aludium Q36 Pumpkin Modulator from Morton, Illinois, shooting a pumpkin 4,491 feet, setting a Guiness World Record in 1998. Three years later, the same air cannon launched a pumpkin 4,860 feet, which remains the longest pumpkin chuck ever.
When I read “Maybe Justice Scalia needs to see the photos of the carnage a semi-automatic weapon … can create”, the first question that come to my mind is just how familiar the author actually is with firearms. My guess would be “Not very.”
Semi-autos are nothing special. Hunting rifles are often semi-auto. Pistols are often semi-auto. All semi-automatic means is that the spent round is ejected and a fresh round is put into the chamber. Semi-auto does not mean “machine gun.” Semi-auto does not mean “spraying bullets.” It’s still just one shot for every pull of the trigger.
I don’t think Scalia is actually saying that shoulder fired rocket launchers and such are protected under the 2nd Amendment. (If he is, I disagree with him.) I think what he’s saying is that’s a question the court has never actually decided. When you’re overreacting to and overstating the meaning of what Scalia said.
I get that you “have difficulties” with rights you don’t like. That doesn’t mean those rights should go away. In fact, I’m not even sure where in the Constitution you think the Federal government is empowered to make those rights go away. The rights of the people are not granted by the Constitution, The Constitution merely protects the rights that are inherent. (See “We Don’t Need No Steenking 2nd Amendment” for more.)
Usually when people reincarnate they carry baggage from a previous life but live in the times of the new life. Seems that Scalia’s latest incarnation got screwed up. He carries baggage from the previous life but is still living in the times of that life. Or he just likes messin’ with us.
Perhaps the People of the United States of America deserve Scalia, perhaps not. Life ain’t fair.
“What do you think of these comments by Justice Scalia and does his concept of originalism go too far?”
I think he loves the worship of the extreme right wing.
“The real scary part is that Justice Scalia doesn’t understand how hilarious and dangerous his concepts are in the real world.”
I don’t purport to know what he understands, but perhaps he believes that the greater danger is the threat a living Constitution poses to our liberties. And, I have heard him state the obvious: there is a process by which the Constitution can be amended if we don’t like what it does or does not allow.