close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by sbhaven, Jul 29, 2012.


  1. sbhaven

    sbhaven
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    4,779
    7
    Location:
    Constitution State
    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is leaving open the possibility that some types of firearms, such as semiautomatic rifles the left lables as "assault weapons" and magazines holding 100 rounds of ammuntion, could be regulated by the government.

    Justice Scalia: ‘It Will Have to Be Decided’ Whether Gov’t Can Regulate Some Types of Guns
    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/justice-scalia-it-will-have-to-be-decided-whether-govt-can-regulate-some-types-of-guns/
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
    #1 sbhaven, Jul 29, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  2. JBnTX

    JBnTX
    Expand Collapse
    Texas

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    19,107
    2,958
    Location:
    Texas
    If it's decided that the government can regulate what types of firearms we can own and use under the second amendment, couldn't they also decide to regulate what types of words we can use under the first amendment?

    What a slippery slope!
     

  3. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    16

    They already regulate.

    I watched (still watching at the moment) the interview and as a longtime distruster of Govt etc I didn't find what he said to be terribly unreasonable. He did quote a precedent for a midemeanor case a very long time ago concerning a person carrying a "headsmans axe" as a tool of intimidation. Apparently "menacing with a weapon" existed a long time ago.

    If you listened to his words carefully he was, IMO, trying to point out the issues of definition. IE is a shoulder fired missle, capable of taking an airliner covered by our 2A rights? As much as I worry about excessive laws I think I am OK with that limit.

    He didn't really take a definitive stand, but if you listen to the beginning when he was laying out his theory of evaluating a law in the language and the meaning of the words at the time of writing, you get the feeling that he looks to the REASON an amendment or a law was written and if those reasons are still valid.

    Just because he didn't give a fire and brimstone defense of the 2A don't rush to judge the Judge
     
  4. azatrox

    azatrox
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    1,770
    0
    Location:
    Arizona
    That they do.
     
  5. janice6

    janice6
    Expand Collapse
    Platinum Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    29,136
    7,264
    Location:
    minnesota
    I believe the actual definition of "regulate", as used here is: "to eliminate completely".
     
  6. Bruce H

    Bruce H
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2000
    3,811
    305
    Location:
    missouri
    People better wake the hell up and start regulating the government before it regulate the citizens into slavery.
     
  7. azatrox

    azatrox
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    1,770
    0
    Location:
    Arizona
    And how do the people do that when they have seemingly lost the SCOTUS too?
     
  8. G29Reload

    G29Reload
    Expand Collapse
    Tread Lightly

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2009
    13,286
    360
    I believe the upper limit should be at field grade artillery.

    Perhaps 20mm and 40mm cannons.

    That's about the modern equivalent of Revolutionary war cannons, some of which were privately owned, and brought into use against the Brits at that time.

    There was nothing seen wrong with privately owned artillery.

    Machine guns and most things up to .50cal are a no-brainer and perfectly suitable. Modern equivalence.

    This still needs to be pounded into theheads of the ignorant: What was used in CO was not an assault weapon and not full auto. Functionally no different than a repeating deer rifle and in fact a smaller caliber.

    It was the scumbag at the wheel that was the problem. My rights are not debatable.
     
  9. Bruce H

    Bruce H
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2000
    3,811
    305
    Location:
    missouri

    Unless I am sorely mistaken isn't the power to impeach by the house and trial in the senate extended to judges also?
     
  10. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    16

    the SCOTUS is not part of the Legislative branch. It only looks at cases under laws written by the Legislative branch
     
  11. Bren

    Bren
    Expand Collapse
    NRA Life Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2005
    40,011
    5,787
    Location:
    Kentucky
    If you think that, you need to take a look at history. Every major positive decision the SC has made in favor of gun rights has been made in the last 4 years.
     
  12. Mister_Beefy

    Mister_Beefy
    Expand Collapse
    Legal & Proper

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2011
    2,422
    0
    what part of "shall not be infringed" do they not understand.
     
  13. Ruble Noon

    Ruble Noon
    Expand Collapse
    "Cracker"

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2009
    11,018
    2
    You should explain that to justice Roberts.
     
  14. KentuckyPatriot

    KentuckyPatriot
    Expand Collapse
    Photojournalist

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2010
    386
    11
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Something to ponder over....


    Regardless of how the possible "regulations" are construed, considered, trashed, etc., remember that the 2A does not say that we have a right to ammunition.

    Those buying off the shelf could face hefty surcharges in the form of a new tax now that we have a precedent, and those reloading could be compelled to pay an equal tax for loading components.

    Those with the money could have both guns and ammo, those without money will become the "have-nots" in this regard.

    Not trying to start another ammo rush, but I think this is one area that is not given enough attention by owners and certainly once it is proposed the Dems will be all over themselves with glee.

    Just a thought!
     
  15. azatrox

    azatrox
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2008
    1,770
    0
    Location:
    Arizona
    I'm all for it. Do we have the votes?

    What did Chief Justice Roberts do just last month..."tweak" the health care bill just a bit so that a tax could be imposed and the bill passed?

    That was with a court that typically voted 5-4. Since then, the Chief Justice has voted with the minority, and the most conservative of the Justices has recently said "we'll see" when it comes to possible firearms restrictions.
    What happened in the last four years is all well and fine, what have you done for me lately?
     
    #15 azatrox, Jul 29, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  16. pugman

    pugman
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    May 16, 2003
    5,987
    107
    Location:
    Wisconsin
    Ted Bundy's weapon of choice was usually a crowbar - does this mean I have at least two assault weapons in my house?
     
  17. countrygun

    countrygun
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    17,069
    16

    Do you have any idea how many pieces of legislation are NOT brought before the SCOTUS?

    If "We the People" would get off our buns and get involved in electing decent legislators and take responsibility for our own elected rep we would have little to worry about from the SCOTUS or the POTUS. But to think, as azatrox indicated, all is lost because of the SCOTUS is just to give lip service to excuse our laziness in all elections.

    If we want decent laws it starts with electing decent lawmakers.
     
  18. hogship

    hogship
    Expand Collapse
    It's MY Island

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2004
    11,763
    1,454
    Location:
    Northwest territory, pardner!
    In this, it seems to me that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is using code words for "If I can find a loophole in the constitution, I'll give the government the right to decide which guns the people can have, and which ones they can't".........very disappointing, but that looks to be the only way interpret his meaning........

    Once a ban is in effect on a permanent basis, given time, there is no limits to what our 2nd Amendment actually means.......or, doesn't mean. Those who want to ban guns will not ever be satisfied......because there will ALWAYS be the next criminal act to get them beating the drum for more gun control.

    Scalia needs to remember why the 2nd A exists.......and, it ain't about duck hunting!

    I can fully understand the disgust, fear, sense of helplessness, etc, that the Colorado shooter has invoked in all of us.........but, instead of restricting the rights of those who don't commit these crimes, it's high time we start putting some fear into the hearts of those who do commit these crimes.

    I'm not in favor of lynching.......but, I see no reason why justice can't be swift and final, in cases where innocence isn't in question. They say that the death penalty isn't a deterrent, and to a point, that is arguable......but, I think quick public executions definitely are a deterrent, and ultimately do make some potential criminals think twice......


    ooc
     
    #18 hogship, Jul 29, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  19. Chronos

    Chronos
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2007
    3,541
    9
    I'd feel better about this approach if you could point out for us some historical examples of free societies that voted themselves into massive, centralized government power and socialism, and then back into freedom.
     
  20. sbhaven

    sbhaven
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2008
    4,779
    7
    Location:
    Constitution State
Loading...