OMG THERE WILL BE GUN LAWS
So, the talk radio, blogs and press are all gaga over Scalia saying that guns may be regulated. Yes, they can be. They are now. That’s not going to change. There will be gun laws. But, with recent events, I’m guessing those laws will continue to be more favorable to gun owners. There’s a whole lot being said over so little. Now, what is interesting is he intimated that rocket launchers may not be regulated since they’re handheld. Cannons, not so much since they are not handheld. Which is funny because in current federal law, it’s the other way around.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:24 am
I want to see more of those Costitutional Originalist gun regulations. Like the one where you had to bring your rifle and basic ammo loadout to church every Sunday for inspection. 😉
July 31st, 2012 at 7:53 am
What is not funny is the fact that Bill Oreilly now supports a national database and is pushing it, and Savage has joined the choir singing the leftist song of pro gun control measures. I wonder if the talking heads turning their neo con leftist agenda to reality will finally wake the people? I doubt it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Hl9fsbg1rsQ
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BSHP8XMt_ts
and
http://www.therightperspective.org/2012/07/24/some-conservatives-favor-assault-weapons-ban/
July 31st, 2012 at 9:08 am
+1 Tam.
Everyone should be required to own an M-4 with loadout, or pay a cowardice tax for not doing so.
July 31st, 2012 at 9:09 am
And since it is a state militia weapon, it should just be assigned to a resident, without any of this BATFE Form 10 bullshit.
July 31st, 2012 at 9:30 am
blounttruth,
Now? Now?
Where you been? Bill O’Reilly’s always been a pro-gun control metrocon. Every time somebody stubs their toe on a gun rack he’s screeching for assault weapons bans and regulations.
Screw him.
The sooner people learn that “On FOX” doesn’t mean “on our side”, the better.
July 31st, 2012 at 9:38 am
Are you sure? I have been told that Faux News is extremely right wing, just like all Pro-Gun whackos, and that I should only pay attention to more responsible and moderate sources, like MSNBC and CNN.
I am also confused that someone didn’t take Holmes’ guns away from him during the shooting and use them against him, because I have been told that is what happens when you carry, especially openly.
July 31st, 2012 at 10:21 am
Now, what is interesting is he intimated that rocket launchers maybe be regulated since they’re handheld. Cannons, not so much since they are not handheld.
Err, no. “The amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be carried. It’s keep and bear, so it doesn’t apply to cannon….” The amendment protects arms that can be carried, not those that cannot. Thus shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missles might be arguably protected, but Scalia suggests that they might be legally excepted under the “frighting” restriction or something similar. That might be the reasoning supporting the “destructive device” NFA restriction, if it ever gets argued in court.
July 31st, 2012 at 10:23 am
d’oh. left out a word.
July 31st, 2012 at 10:51 am
Tam,
I do now recall him supporting the disarming of Americans when he interviewed Stuart Rhodes:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEYkkgIkHbI
“The sooner people learn that “On FOX” doesn’t mean “on our side”, the better.”
It is so nice to converse with the awakened.
July 31st, 2012 at 12:38 pm
HL,
I wish I wrote that. 😀
July 31st, 2012 at 12:43 pm
The whole concept of man portable arms could be interesting. Check out the Royal Navy Field Gun competition videos on YouTube.
July 31st, 2012 at 12:47 pm
I’ll pose the same question to the ‘honorable’ justice that I posed on another site: if momma whacks poppa upside the head with a frying pan, has it become a ‘menacing hand held weapon’???
As has been proven over and over again, the creeps that do mass shootings (and the ones that do individual ones) DO NOT obey the current laws, how on earth can anyone with a modicum of common sense believe that making something ‘more’ illegal will somehow magically or mystically suddenly stop them. PFM perhaps?
July 31st, 2012 at 1:28 pm
Exactly GomeznSA. There’s been laws against murder for a lot longer than there’s been gun control laws and the penalty has always been much more severe. Yet that has’nt prevented whackos that want to wade in blood from doing so. But the same whacko who’s willing to ignore the law against murder will comply with gun carry/posession laws?
July 31st, 2012 at 3:21 pm
“Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes.” Scalia’s no real scholar, or he’d have seen this one coming. Trying to parse “bear” exempts Trojan horses.
Will he say that you must walk to the range? He’s all hung up in his higher thinking here. Very confused man.
July 31st, 2012 at 3:51 pm
Actually, this isn’t quite a New Thing. Didn’t Alito put something into DC vs Heller about localities having the Right to Regulate Firearms? So, I.E., until I hear someone on SCOTUS say on Air “What part of Shall NOT be Infringed don’t you understand?”, I really don’t consider any of the Supremes to be “Pro-Gun.”
Oh, Kristopher, BTW, instead of an M4, would it be all right with you if some of us used a DMR in 7.62 Nato instead? ; )
July 31st, 2012 at 4:56 pm
I thought Sclia was an “originalist”. The 2nd Amendment is directed to the federal government and it says “shall not be infringed”; strong, direct language that restricts the federal government from any legal restrictions on the armed citizenry.
If one reads Article I, Section 8.15-16, according to the rules of English grammar, the “delegated powers” of the federal government, beyond which it has NO POWER to act, only allows it to govern “such part of the militia which is called into its service and EMPLOYED.” Therefore it is quite clear according to the words of the Constitution that ALL Federal gun laws are UNLAWFUL except those which apply only to its employees.
July 31st, 2012 at 6:35 pm
75mm recoilless rifle IS HAND HELD!! (90mm is to heavy.)
I want one!
July 31st, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Keven: That little fracas at Lexington was started because a Mr John Hancock bought a pair of cannons as a gift to his friend in the town militia. The Redcoats were sent to seize them.
( the Brits didn’t get them, by the way, as the owner buried them in a cornfield the night before )
July 31st, 2012 at 9:32 pm
Bubblehead: You’ll need to pay for the M240 out of yer own pocket, dammit.
At $100 a pop, M-16 receivers will be expensive enough right now.
August 1st, 2012 at 4:35 am
@Ron: correct the federal government has no power to regulate arms, beyond those held by the active military.
August 1st, 2012 at 9:21 am
I just wish you guys would give up all your guns so I could stop being on strike already. Thanks for nothing, Bloomberg.
August 1st, 2012 at 10:04 am
Let Bloomberg go first and lead by example.