Scalia: ‘Limitations’ could be imposed on guns in the future
On this weekend’s broadcast of “Fox News Sunday,” host Chris Wallace asked Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to react to the possibility that gun laws might change in the wake of the shooting tragedy in Aurora, Colorado earlier this month.
Wallace wanted to know how much power state governments and legislatures had to regulate firearms, including semiautomatic weapons.
“What the opinion in [District of Columbia v. Heller] said is that it will have to be decided in future cases what limitations upon the right to keep and bear arms are permissible,” Scalia said. “Some undoubtedly are because there were some that were acknowledged at the time [of the writing of the Constitution] … so, yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time.”
When Wallace asked whether the Second Amendment permitted even weapons that could fire hundreds of rounds in a minute, Scalia paused.
More @ The Daily Caller
Maybe the Myans were right and the end of the world as we know it does end 12/21/12. They really want test how we will react to implementing some kind of gun control/legislation/civil war.
ReplyDeleteSomebody is not going to be Happy after the election!
They really want test how we will react to implementing some kind of gun control/legislation/civil war.
ReplyDeleteOh, yes.
This is depressing...
ReplyDeleteCan anyone tell me what "limits" there were on "what arms people could buy" when our Constitution was written?
AFAIK, anyone could own about ANYTHING. Cannon and mortars were certainly in private hands, as were battleships ("Letters of Marque and Reprisal", anyone??!) so WITF does "Antonin" get his info?!
The reality is that if the .mil has it, WE THE PEOPLE CAN TOO. *THAT* is what Our Founders meant by "shall not be infringed."
Shiat - if SCALIA is really this clueless, what hope can we have for the rest of them?
if the .mil has it, WE THE PEOPLE CAN TOO. *
ReplyDeleteWhich is GOA's position.
An Idea To GOA
http://www.namsouth.com/viewtopic.php?t=2526&highlight=goa
Robert E. Duggar
to Brock Townsend
date Mon, Mar 23, 2009 at 9:52 AM
subject Re: An Idea
Thank you for the note.
I have forwarded your suggestion to my supervisor.
Our position on this is:
the Second Amendment covers any weapon that our individual infantry soldier ever carried, is carrying or will carry. Naturally, in order to repel "infantry" enemies foreign and domestic, our citizen "infantry" must have competing weapons - ergo, the Second Amendment.
Robert E. Duggar
Public Liaison
Gun Owners Of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102