Thursday, August 22, 2013

A pistol in every pocket and an RPG in every gun safe. "Justice Scalia Goes Gun Crazy"

"Perhaps Scalia really does understand that the Second Amendment has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with hunting or self defense, and has everything to do with ameliorating tyranny."


Anonymous said...

Longstanding SCOTUS determination is that protected arms are those useful in military conflict. Yesteryear that bar meant sawed off shotguns were NOT protected and that chickenshit line afforded the idea that if SOME banning was allowed by government then much could be disallowed. Hello class three ban.

The fact is that the military today would make a strong case of common sense that sawed offs and other sbr are indeed quite useful and indeed necessary.

The truth is that heller and McDonald are a left jab right cross knockout punch for modern day gun control. Fully automatics are protected and so are other arms - nunchucks and blades included miss sotomayor!!

SCOTUS is locked into a corner after admitting that there really does exist a INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to keep and bear (to own and carry/use in defense).

Buying selling carrying and using in defense of self property and kin is sacred and not to be infringed (decided by government). True enough it is that government has authority regarding USES outside protected rights and THAT is the case we as gun owners MUST make going forward. Scalia and others on the court will sway our way if we do so.

We can transition from gun control to criminal control if we are smart enough to band together with that message. If we ADMIT that some "gun laws" are indeed PROPER because they are OUTSIDE the keep and bear protection - we can win this fight in SCOTUS in a way they cannot do anything but ADMIT the truth. I believe that is the signal Scalia is sending.

Will gun owners LISTEN?

oughtsix said...

Sorry, but it simply no longer matters what Scalia thinks.

Mt Top Patriot said...

Mike you are fond of saying "Welcome to the party Pal!"

Ever wonder what makes these black robed Nazgul's and their ilk afraid?

Me thinks it's guns.

It is all going to come down to guns.

It is what the regime formerly called a Republic of rule of law now lives by.

What it appears this particular ring with is skirting around goes something like this:

It is not ours to restore the power of the Constitution. It is ours to show them the wrath of America without the protections the Constitution offers them.

Let them restore it to find refuge from us.

– TL Davis

Anonymous said...

To finish the thought " And a main battle tank in every garage or pole barn."

Anonymous said...

New quinnipiac poll shows 54% of state is against the new co gun laws that passed!

Ed said...

Repeal the Hughes Amendment or challenge it and find it unconstitutional.

Anonymous said...

From Page 8 of the Heller decision approx. 3/4 down page:

"... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

I believe that WOULD cover shoulder-fired grenade launchers and anti-aircraft missiles, fully automatic weaponry of any BEARABLE kind. Don't think main battle tanks would qualify though we could possibly "take" some once SHTF. It's ALL available to us then anyway.

The McDonald decision clearly states the fundamental purpose of the 2A is self-defense. Ok, that means we have the PROTECTED right to BEAR arms wherever we are, whatever we're doing, regardless of what State we're in, for lawful purposes in case of "spontaneous confrontation."

The only "sensitive places" I've been able to come up with whereby the gov'ts interest is "overwhelming" to infringe the right is in places like Court Houses and Correctional/Detention Facilities whereby everyone entering is searched and sufficient numbers of armed LEOs are on hand to handle any threat which might arise.

No schools and County/Municipal buildings do not qualify. Nor do political rallies/meetings/gatherings (themselves also protected by an Amendment in the BoRs).

Yup, I think they've backed themselves into a corner and the lower courts are having much trouble finding a way out.


Anonymous said...

, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.

But a militia would be useless unless the citizens were enabled to exercise themselves in the use of warlike weapons.

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface.We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.

That's heller. Now add that nobody argued "our" side in miller and revisited today the military will NOT try to make a case that short rifles or shotguns aren't "useful". I deed they will want them protected because they are not only useful but necessary. The same is true regarding automatics.

I submit that "imposed" training is WIDE open to SELF discipline as opposed to government imposition. This because government imposition is AFTER the militia is called forth and as a part of "organization".

I TOTALLY reject Scalias meme about "we should not be surprised" " because these question has never been asked". Ahem. Lots if us have long been asking and the REALITY is that SCOTUS has simply refused to ANSWER.

All this from the perspective of an Illinoisan who STILL cannot bear arms WHATSOEVER in the public square without being jailed for daring to exercise a fundamental enumerated and even adjudicated by the Supremes riight!!! For Scalia to claim about all that needs to be addressed is scope of arms protected is laughable on its face and a testament to how out of touch even the most "conservative" justices are today.

Anonymous said...

Stinger in the basement.


Jimmy the Saint said...

@Mt Top Patriot: "Ever wonder what makes these black robed Nazgul's and their ilk afraid?

Me thinks it's guns."

It's not guns that scare them. They are quite happy to let the military, state and local police, federal agencies, and private security companies have whatever arms they want in whatever quantity they want. So long as the *right* people have guns, the elites are completely ok with it.

They *do* fear guns in the hands of people who aren't their sworn/paid servitors, however. They fear it for the same reason that knights feared crossbows: they give the peasantry the power to kill the persons of quality, and we just can't have that.

Mt Top Patriot said...

you said it.

The mandarins don't call the AR an "assault Weapon" for nothing. But not for the reasons they gull the people for. It is because they are afraid, like any despot or tyrant can only be, those weapons will be used to assault them.

Fear of what we will do to them for what they are doing to us.

Every believer in Liberty must grasp the cold hard truth our sovereignty and our sovereign lawful will exists ultimately through the barrel of our guns. Principle is, if the Liberty to protect ourselves, our loved ones, our property, our rule of law is prohibited, if peaceful redress that is an inherently crucial component of our Liberty is prohibited, then violent redress becomes a matter of fact, it becomes a matter of our survival as free men.

So, lets not beat around the bush. This All about guns. Everything these scumbags do revolves ultimately about guns. It is guns that give these pieces of shit their power. It is guns that they fear. It is guns that they must if they are to take over our country in order to rule with an iron fist. It is guns that they must take from the populous in order obtain that absolute power. It is guns they understand like none other are the real power behind anything. It is guns this system of government now lives by. It is guns that they use to enforce everything.
And it is guns in the hands of We The People that they fear most.
Any thing else is a cheap side show.

Anonymous said...

Methinks Miller is irrelevant post Heller and McDonald.

As a matter of fact, most 2A jurisprudence prior Heller and McDonald is moot.

Judges are having a hard time adjusting but adjust they must.