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
Bron
I have guns and I am not compelled to kill. As a result, you are wrong! People kill not guns. Guns and any other weapon can do no harm by itself.
OS,
You need your rest. Your client must come first.
Jim:
dont you know that guns compel people to kill?
Oh my, Jim sent me a video from a B movie. 🙄 Jim, I have seen that clip more times than I care to think about. And as I said, it is late and I have to see a criminal defendant first thing in the morning. I don’t feel like entertaining or educating you this evening.
Let’s see,
The Chicago police pull their cars over and talk to the professional girls. What for? They see me coming along with my computer bag and everything, then they leave. I didn’t tell the police to leave. They were just talking to the girls.
I haven’t had a taxi ride since I was in Chicago. Gave him a tip, but he didn’t back anything but a dirty look.
Otteray Scribe
This is for you::
Otteray Scribe
Tell me where I have gone wrong with the following:
When are all of you Liberals going to realize that it is not the weapon but rather the person using the weapon who causes all of the damage. A gun by itself can do no harm (logic for those who have a brain) and outlawing any type of weapon will not prevent those who want one to obtain access.
Jim sez:
“Scalia is brilliant and should be the guide to what a Justice should be. The Constitution was written to be followed not torn up by a bunch of nut jobs who act on emotion.”
****************************************
Wow! Just…..wow!
I am speechless. If it were not so late and I have early appointments in the morning, I would tackle a few of Jim’s logical fallacies but don’t even know where to start. Like trying to untangle the Gordian Knot of illogic of the ill informed. Ummmmm….trying to think of a word….oh yeah…..Wazzock.
What do you think now? Do you want to shoot at plastic people?
The dog wouldn’t have died.
When are all of you Liberals going to realize that it is not the weapon but rather the person using the weapon who causes all of the damage. A gun by itself can do no harm (logic for those who have a brain) and outlawing any type of weapon will not prevent those who want one to obtain access.
firefly
You asked,
Does anyone here know how Scalia feels about laser guns?
Simply put are laser guns considered arms?
Blouise
Scalia is brilliant and should be the guide to what a Justice should be. The Constitution was written to be followed not torn up by a bunch of nut jobs who act on emotion.
If they kill my dog, they’re going to be dead. And I don’t even have a dog.
I was going to say, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is just really stupid but Mike beat me to it so,
I agree with Mike.
Does anyone here know how Scalia feels about laser guns?
Won’t complain. I’m not hoarding food.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/29/rocket-launchers-and-the-second-amendment/
Matt not too bad for me, too bad for us.
Well said Mike S.!