Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Connect with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Read up on the latest product reviews
  • Make new friends to go shooting with!
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more.

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by pipedreams, Feb 15, 2013.

  1. pipedreams

    pipedreams Member

    Feb 19, 2011
    S. E. Iowa
    Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America's demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.
  2. Is that the article where he mentions teaching Keagan to hunt :)

    It be outright funny if she comes out as pro-gun.

    I joined the NRA, have you yet?

  3. pipedreams

    pipedreams Member

    Feb 19, 2011
    S. E. Iowa
  4. hogship

    hogship It's MY Island

    Yes.....It mentions that Elana Keagan harvested a whitetail doe in Wyoming.

    Familiarizing her with firearms isn't a bad thing, but I am not feeling very good about this at all.

    What Scalia needs to do is teach her about what the constitution means.....and, if she is to uphold it, it really doesn't matter if she is pro or anti-gun.......the constitution is what it is, and it's about maintaining the relationship between "the people" and a militia. Because the second amendment is one sentence, and there is no room for doubt that arming private citizens for no other purpose than that of military preparedness is the sole focus, and objective of the document.

    I'm getting really tired of hearing about hunting, and self defense. These things are included in the total meaning of the second amendment by default.....but they are not in any way, the purpose, or intent of the second amendment.

    Why is Scalia not mentioning these things? I'll tell what I think all this means.........he is ready to fold under pressure, and not uphold the constitution for the very reason it was written, or exists. :steamed:

  5. TK-421


    Oct 12, 2012
    Pflugerville, TX
    I could be wrong here, but doesn't the supreme court generally deal with stuff only after it's taken effect? Meaning that the gun laws have to be passed before the Supreme Court can rule on whether or not they're constitutional? Or can they rule on them while they're still in the bill stage?
  6. hogship

    hogship It's MY Island

    Good question, and I'm not the one who can definitively answer it, but it's my belief that you are correct. I also believe it must be taken up in a lower court, and ruled on there first, as well.....then appealed to the SCOTUS, before it can be ruled on by that court. A prior ruling can stand as is, or taken up by the SCOTUS, which has the ability to decide if a ruling can be taken up as an issue to be settled, or not.

    Am I right, or wrong about that?

    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  7. pipedreams

    pipedreams Member

    Feb 19, 2011
    S. E. Iowa
    I believe your correct but keep in mind some states such as NY are already passing laws which they could rule on.
  8. A big reason for the SC to take a case is because federal appeals courts in different districts have come to different conclusions.

    I believe it was a Maryland case that thus far says someone has the right to a CCW permit. And a NY case that thus far says someone does not have the right to a CCW permit.

    Both of these cases made it to the federal level, but in different districts, and got two different answers. Thus the SC needs to step in and settle the question.

    I joined the NRA, have you yet?
  9. jay1975

    jay1975 Ultra Master

    Feb 3, 2012
    US v Miller (1939) said that the 2nd protects the right to own a weapon that is of common use to the military in order to have an equally armed militia in the US. The precedent has been set, now we just need the SCOTUS to uphold that precedent and stop these rogue states from trampling on our rights.
  10. Cambo


    Jun 19, 2006
    Isn't Scalia the one in 2008 who talked about "reasonable restrictions" for certain types of weapons? That quote is being used up and down by the anti gun scum.:steamed:
  11. jay1975

    jay1975 Ultra Master

    Feb 3, 2012
    The only explanation he gave for "reasonable restrictions" was concerning shoulder launched rockets. Originally, he addressed this by saying he thinks it will be up to the court to finally settle what is allowed or not. Again, he has cited US v Miller before in saying that guns of common use are what can be protected under the 2nd, which includes the AR15 as it is common use with the military.
  12. Syclone538


    Jan 8, 2006
    And at the same time restricted short barrel shotguns and anything full auto.

    It was a big mess that I looked into quite a bit when Alan Gura and Bob Levy were doing Heller, but I still don't really understand it. I'm not sure anyone does. Miller, or anyone representing him, did not show up.

    I'm not sure if this link will work, as the site doesn't exist anymore, but it's on the way back machine.
    do lot nam narsis do boi cao cap xe day doi cao cap cho be chan vay cong so thoi trang cong so gia re chup anh cho be
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  13. SpectreRider

    SpectreRider Armed Citizen

    The ar15 is not in common use in the US military... The M16 is. Maybe we will get an expansion of what is commonly allowed.

    posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
  14. HarleyGuy


    Mar 29, 2008
    Unless I'm very mistaken, the military uses a select-fire, fully automatic, M-16 carbine, as does many law enforcement agencies here in the U.S.
    However, I doubt that since full autos have been "regulated" since 1934(?).
    I doubt there's little chance that they will ever be obtainable (mainly due to the price) for the average guy but I do believe that we can protect our rights to own pistols and rifles that use semi-auto technology which has been around for more than a century.

    The more anti-gun folks (i.e. Piers Morgan etc.) will occasionally toss in the inflamatory and complete B.S. about rocket launchers, bazookas and tanks, which I doubt any sane supporter of the Second Amendment, or SCOTUS would agree with.
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2013
  15. snerd


    Apr 20, 2007
    After Obamacare, anyone who thinks they will rule Constitutionally on guns is delusional.
  16. Comrade Bork

    Comrade Bork

    May 1, 2001
    Last December a Fed District court pretty much directed Illinois, the only remaining State with no CCW law, to adopt one by about June

    That was how Ohio got theirs.
  17. SPIN2010

    SPIN2010 Searching ...

    Mar 14, 2010
    On the move ... again!
    On the money!
  18. Electrikkoolaid

    Electrikkoolaid Grape flavored!

    Mar 1, 2010
    Isn't this the same supreme court that decided government can condemn private property under immanent domain and turn it over for private development?

    Not feeling very optimistic about reversing anything, and it will take years of working through delays before it makes it to SCOTUS -- by which time Obama may have one or more of his nominees in place.
  19. GAFinch


    Feb 23, 2009
    Almost all constitutional laws/amendments are subject to reasonable restrictions. It doesn't seem like Scalia is making threats, just stating a fact. He firmly believes that the Constitution is a dead document that needs to be upheld based on its original interpretation, not re-examined during every socio-political fad that comes along.

    It does normally take years for challenges to work their way up to the SCOTUS, but it looks Scalia is intentionally trying to speed up the process and lock in various pro-2A decisions before Obama finishes flipping the court to progressives. He's smart enough to know from history what will happen if the public is disarmed.
  20. writwing


    Jan 23, 2008

    As you know second amendment is not about hunting. Leopards don't change their spots. If it goes to the SCOTUS we are in trouble.