http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729
Well there you have it. Even the most conservative justice is saying guns can be regulated.
Explain to me how Romney will help us again?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729
Well there you have it. Even the most conservative justice is saying guns can be regulated.
Explain to me how Romney will help us again?
The Shall Not Infringers are really just absolutists railing about a governmental/legal system that has rarely, if ever, found any right to be absolute. If someone can point to where Madison, Jefferson or any other Founding Father wrote or said otherwise, please do post it in context here for all to see.
So what is your point in posting this, other than to piss someone off? Maybe you should tell us what your impression of the extents of the 2nd amendment are, instead of just posting a snark ridden, troll like statement.
-Mike
June4th
NES Member
Jeez, here I was contemplating, in a strict constitutional sense, if government should be allowed to regulate me buying Stinger missiles, an M1A1 Abrams, an F18 or a small nuke device IF I COULD AFFORD ANY OF THESE.
It turned out, Martha wouldn't even let me buy a frigging new handgun from a dealer without a loaded chamber indicator!![[angry]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
It turned out, Martha wouldn't even let me buy a frigging new handgun from a dealer without a loaded chamber indicator!
ntomsw
Banned
GM-GUY
NES Member
Tin Foil Hat Alert -
Is someone 'getting' to these guys. Chief Justice Roberts and now Justice Scalia, it can't be a coincidence can it?
Hat Off.
I am reasonably sure that 'they' being those currently in-charge and embedded in the system see what is coming (major collapse) and anything they can do to limit our (and by inference 'The People's Power') will allow them to stay in their sweet jobs, with limo's and armed guards. If The People have the means and motive, they will adjust the system; which will be bad for a lot of folks in DC either way.
Is someone 'getting' to these guys. Chief Justice Roberts and now Justice Scalia, it can't be a coincidence can it?
Hat Off.
I am reasonably sure that 'they' being those currently in-charge and embedded in the system see what is coming (major collapse) and anything they can do to limit our (and by inference 'The People's Power') will allow them to stay in their sweet jobs, with limo's and armed guards. If The People have the means and motive, they will adjust the system; which will be bad for a lot of folks in DC either way.
No, just students of history that understand if the government gets to decide how terrible is terrible enough, they will decide with their best interests at heart, not ours.
They will regulate to ensure that the check and balance of force to their tyranny provided by 2A is as tilted in their favor as they think they can get away with at the ballot box.
Another possible tin foil might be, Scalia is egging them on to bring more gun control so he can shoot it down.
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
A few interesting quotes from our founding father(s):
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
Thomas Jefferson, 1813
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson, 1824.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
Thomas Jefferson, 1776. Papers, 1:353
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
I always thought the second amendment was pretty clear... and that "shall not be infringed" was pretty straightforward. I really don't know where the fools on capital hill keep getting confused?
"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done."
Thomas Jefferson, 1813
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson, 1824.
"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."
Thomas Jefferson, 1776. Papers, 1:353
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).
I always thought the second amendment was pretty clear... and that "shall not be infringed" was pretty straightforward. I really don't know where the fools on capital hill keep getting confused?
The purpose is to point out, and possibly even discuss rationally, the fact that Scalia is being completely logical and consistent with his long held standard for interpreting the Constitution. If you know of any Founding Father who advocated any absolute rights in either the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I'd very much like to see the source. What this leaves us with is the conflict of different sides on gun control issues. Generally, the absolutist position ultimately become politically untenable and such groups very often wind up getting less than they could have had they been willing to realistically negotiate. The anti-gun advocates, of which I am obviously not one as I CC, love the absolutists because they are so very easy to lampoon and make appear to be crazies.
BTW, what I found most interesting about Scalia's remarks was the history lesson he gave the viewers regarding the existence of gun control in the colonies which was an acceptable part of colonial and post-colonial life when the Constitution and BoR were written and ratified. I'm happy to discuss any of this reasonably with you or anyone else.
Last edited:
I think they have the right to defend themselves with the use of firearms unless there is some sort of formal declaration made. How that is made, I have not yet formed an opinion on.
I'm sure I'll also break from the majority here in that I don't think the founding fathers did take into account some of the weapons and systems that would be created. I think NFA is unconstitutional with regard to everything from SBRs to MGs to Explosives, but I am not opposed to their being more strict scrutiny on who can take possession of certain weapon systems. IE, I think that private citizens should be able to buy grenades, but not in the same manner they can go out and buy a pistol or rifle. Same with new production machine guns.
Mike
I'm sure I'll also break from the majority here in that I don't think the founding fathers did take into account some of the weapons and systems that would be created. I think NFA is unconstitutional with regard to everything from SBRs to MGs to Explosives, but I am not opposed to their being more strict scrutiny on who can take possession of certain weapon systems. IE, I think that private citizens should be able to buy grenades, but not in the same manner they can go out and buy a pistol or rifle. Same with new production machine guns.
Mike
Last edited:
A 'violently mentally ill' person will First have to be deemed as such.
If so deemed it is most likely the result of some type of violence or treatment/diagnosis.
So I believe that your friend who is 'violently mentally ill' will not be a Freeman for long.
For this reason I disagree with your questionable logic and ask you to troll elsewhere.
Matt
If they are not committed to a mental hospital or in jail. They you should have the right to keep and bear arms. I will not restrict the rights of all because of the potential of a very small minority to abuse the right. Freedom is neither free nor safe, but it is better than the alternative
dixidawg
NES Member
This should not be a surprise.
Scalia wrote in he Heller decision:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
Scalia wrote in he Heller decision:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any
manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment
or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by
felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or
laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those
“in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
Pp. 54–56.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf
This. If they can't exist in society, then they shouldn't. Forbidding them from owning firearms doesn't prevent them from committing violence. Heck, it doesn't even prevent them from owning firearms.
[video=youtube_share;R1R3Zwy-GHk]http://youtu.be/R1R3Zwy-GHk[/video]
So, you clearly agree that there can be proper restrictions on a citizen's 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The next issue is how best to stop a mentally ill person from doing harm with weapons already obtained, perhaps obtained prior to the onset of mental illness.
Treating mental health professionals have a legal obligation to report to appropriate authorities anyone they reasonably believe to be an imminant threat to themselves or others. Family members in the same position can go to the police or bring a commitment proceeding. In many states, the police can take a person to a locked mental facility for a specific period of observation, which might include taking possession of guns possessed by the person hospitalized until a mental status determination can be made by doctors and reviewed by a court with the patient represented by counsel. Not a perfect system, but it has worked in the past many times.
Well, your Honor, I believe that Sere and Supermoto pretty much summed up how I feel about your question. Besides, I thought that you had put me on ignore.
The only time anyone rights should be restrict is when they are removed from society. Once you have returned to society, your rights are returned in full. You can only be removed from society after you have committed an act that has violated another's rights
Also, I will never make one party legally responsible for another's actions
