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
aj,
If you think rocket launchers are a good idea, then sign up for the military.
Jim-
Buy yourself a WWII Japanese Army Nambu pistol, load it, and drop it on the floor several times. You will then learn how a pistol can kill someone without anyone firing it. Putting it in its holster or pulling it out of its holster may have the same effect. (Be sure to put on your body armor first!)
Perhaps this is twisted, but a part of me is just curious how much mayham would really happen if the rocket launcher was legalized..
I think that there would e some isolated events, but overall ther e wouldn’t be complete chaos like some people like to imagine..
l
If the militaries of the world owns armored vehicles, perhaps the citizenry of the world should have a way to deal with that threat..
Remember, the second amendment was never about self-defense or hunting, it was about being able to take on a ARMY if need be.
If anything, it would be like during the founding fathers timesif they defended swords but not muskets, cleary giving any army of the world a clear advantage.
Elaine M.
This link shows the total vote in Florida.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/2000/popular_vote.html
Elaine M.
As I stated earlier, a year after the 2000 election it was concluded that Bush would have won anyway.
Jim,
“We elect based on electoral college.”
Really? Gee, I didn’t know that. You are a wealth of information!
😉
As you may recall, George W. got a little help along the way in winning Florida’s electoral votes from Katherine Harris and the Supreme Court.
When Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomatix, or however ya spell it, one of the terms of the surrender and the peace was that the officers were allowed to return home, pardoned, with their handguns or personal weapons.
Otteray Scribe
Obama had both houses of congress for two years.
Elaine M.
We elect based on electoral college.
JIM,
FYI:
Popular Vote Total 2000 Presidential Election
Percent of Popular Vote
Al Gore (Democrat)
50,999,897
48.38
George W. Bush (Republican)
50,456,002
47.87
http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2000/prespop.htm
Jim, one reason Bush had a few good years was because Bill Clinton left him with a record surplus. In eight short years he squandered it with wars that did not need to be fought and favors for the wealthiest. Barack Obama came into office with an inheritance of the Bush economic disaster, and a congress whose avowed purpose was to make sure the Obama Presidency was a failure. I see today that the congress of “jobs creation” spent a huge amount of time making sure the Immigration Service does not provide abortions for women who are detained. Talk about Nero fiddling while Rome burned!
Nothing in there about jobs. I call them job cremators, not job creators.
No Jim. You do not have your facts right. The individual mandate will require them to have insurance. There will be some who will be subsidized, but we will still pay less than we are now.
Jim,
Guns can go off without the trigger being pulled. If you agree with Scalia, which military weapon won’t be illegal?
well you have already been told how a gun can in fact hurt someone all by itself.
As far as the ACA you need to educate yourself. The taxpayer now pays for the 32 million uninsured. The ACA will allow many of them to buy insurance.
Parrotiing what you have heard is not a sign of intelligence, educating yourself is.
rafflaw
As I said earlier, guns do not kill people do. A gun by itself can do no harm so the focus should be on people not guns.
rafflaw
I do agree with Scalia. The ACA will not cover them it will be the Taxpayer. They are not paying customers.
Jim,
The personal attacks are uncalled for. There are approximately 30-40 million people without insurance coverage now and the ACA will cover a substantial portion of them. You are once again just pulling false facts out of the air.
By the way, do you agree with Justce Scalia?
Small nuclear weapons could be carried by hand. Why are they not legal?
rafflaw
You are a joke and I am not laughing. 30-40 million new paying customers. Where are these customers right now? If they exist they will be paying now.and I can assure you they won’t be the ones who will good citizens and pay forced health insurance.
rafflaw
Notice you said deficit not debt. It will take 10 years to get the deficit under control while all of those years the debt rises. Are you blind to not see that?
leejcaroll
The Bush tax cuts saw over 48 months of economic prosperity this country has ever seen. It was Barney Frank who loosened the lending restrictions so people who could not afford a home could get one which brought down the economy. Why do you ignore the 5 trillion debt Obama has accumulated in just 3 1/2 years?
Finally, our Founding Fathers did not have an income tax on top of all other taxes so don’t tell me anything about patriotism. Income taxes is not patriotic but rather legalized theft.