Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told "Fox News Sunday" that "the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons,” The National Journal reported this morning, and that has created quite a media stir.
My comment: Anyone who thinks electoral politics or Supreme Court decisions derived from said politics is going to protect our liberty and property hasn't been paying attention. You'd better be getting ready to defend those things without benefit of any chance of political protection -- as a despised minority in your own country.
If it is concealed, how can it be menacing...
"The Myth of the Rule of Law" John Hasnas
They have rights who dare maintain them.
Anti gun senator shoots intruder...
The Founders would have already started shooting.
Looks like Tony let his elitist nature slip out.
It reads "Shall Not Be Infringed", Tony.
I think we are fighting a good fight. And I think things are better as far as the Supreme Court's jurisprudence is concerned. By my likes, they are better today than what they were 26 years ago.--Justice Scalia
Thanks to Scalia, et. al., we have Heller and McDonald. Prior to these landmark decisions, we had to rely on the Miller case to defend our rights. Can anyone seriously argue that the legal standing of gun owners has been weakened by recent rulings on the Second Amendment?
Next question: would a man who carried a head ax and made threatening gestures receive attention from armed authorities in any of the original 13 colonies?
Would the militia (armed settlers) have proscribed such conduct?
The Second Amendment is now as strong and secure as it has been at any time during my four decades of political activism. Please let's not snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by insisting on absurd theories that the Second Amendment invests individuals with the right to store sarin gas in the garage or construct an ICBM with a ballistic warhead.
The upper limit for an individually operated weapon should strongly resemble the BAR.
Beyond that, we are in the realm of crew-served weapons where the rights of individuals begin to be subordinated to the military hierarchy and it is inevitable that a stricter level of scrutiny for the purchase of such armaments would be construed by the courts to be a "reasonable" restriction. Such a ruling, while objectionable to the absolutists, would meet with little resistance.
In practical terms, if every man is to be armed, most will not choose the M1917 Browning, whatever it's many merits.
Let's prioritize. Make sure everyone has a battle carbine, six or seven 30-round magazines and at least 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
Then, we can leisurely debate the fine points of law.
Well, now that the conservative portion of the Supremes has gone south for the duration, we might as well watch this clip:
Malthus, my problem with Scalia's statement, and I heard him say it, "frightening weapons" and who thus decides which are frightening? The little old lady from Pasadena, or a moron politician like schumer who couldn't tell a gun from a broom?
Malthus: Our Founders' generation - and on for nearly a century - were permitted "crew-served weapons" up to and including BATTLESHIPS. Letters of Marque came when someone said
"I've got this ship, and I'd like to go kick @$$ on some of our Republic's enemies - is that alright with y'all?"
Likewise, private ownership of cannon - most of which had an 8-man crew per!
Is that not a "crew-served weapon"?!
Bottom line: I should be able to own a TANK if I have the space and funds! Likewise for an F-22, B52 and so-on!
If the .mil has it, and might use it against us, WE are supposed to be allowed to have it - PERIOD!
It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear SMALL, INDIVIDUAL arms..." it just says "...ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED (PERIOD!).
That said, it clearly does NOT apply to nukes, or nerve-gas, but then I can't see our .mil ever using those against US, so... I think the analogy is still appropriate!
When I used to have to evict people from rent houses I owned, I talked with LEOs about laws related to menacing with firearms, hand held or otherwise. It was determined that as long as I didn't point them directly at the deadbeats, I was not menacing anyone, I just happened to have a gun along on my "talk". BTW, Slung AR not pointed at anybody in particular on property YOU OWN is not considered menacing in my AO when you are evicting people from your property. I wouldn't even want to hazard a guess as to how a firearm could be menacing by itself...
If the object of 2A is defense against government tyranny, then squad assault and crew served weapons are entirely appropriate for civilian ownership. If I could afford the care and feeding of a MaDeuce or a minigun, and had access to one I'd buy it in heartbeat. I do not covet the approval of the weak, only the fellowship of warriors and freemen. I subordinated myself to the military hierarchy for 20 years as active duty USMC. I am retired and will no longer subordinate myself to any but my God.
" Roger that ". We are and have been for some time , on our own with no representation whatsoever. Congressional lap dog`s must see to their master`s desire`s.
This is EXACTLY why Jefferson said that the Supreme Court is not the final arbiter of the constitution, a concept that is virtually never mentioned in the media or public schools today.
Jefferson argued that Supreme Court figures are men, and make mistakes like all men do so that it is ridiculous for the federal government to be ultimate judge of what the federal government does in relation to the states. This is why he wrote the VA and KY resolutions asserting that states have the duty to nullify and refuse to enforce any unconstitutional law passed at the federal level such as the outrageous Alien and Sedition Acts of Adams.
This is also why WI refused to enforce the fugitive slave act, and the same principles many northern states used in resolutions against various policies and proposed policies of the federal government, not to mention SC ending the abominable tariff threat.
The answer isn't in crooked federal elections where both sides are fixed, as is the arbiters, but in controlling the state governments and nullifying this nonsense.
For anyone truly interested in this, I would highly recommend checking out:
The 2A never was to protect our right, it was to keep the gov from incurring our wrath by doing something stupid. It looks like they are about to do something stupid.
Post a Comment