Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To 2nd Amendment Rights

[Lakhota]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

 

[OODA_Loop]

Of course there are.

 

[candycorn]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

Interesting....

 

[IGetItAlready]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

24 seconds of a 10-15 minute interview? You so need to watch the rest. I'm guessing you'll be shocked.

Just prior to his saying, "...so yes there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. There were certain location limitations..." he spoke of some sort of 18th century battle axe which had been found unlawful to carry around simply to intimidate and scare people.
And just after the HuffPo cherry picked segment Scalia goes on to say that the decision will have to be made regarding things like hand held rocket launchers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

Yes there were locational limitations to keep recently free black slaves disarmed. But the 14th amendment took care of that. I fear that medication is fucking with the mind of justice Scalia
The second amendment is quite clear on the matter the right of the people shall not be infringed
And yes the whole people are the militia.

 

[Lakhota]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

24 seconds of a 10-15 minute interview? You so need to watch the rest. I'm guessing you'll be shocked.

Just prior to his saying, "...so yes there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. There were certain location limitations..." he spoke of some sort of 18th century battle axe which had been found unlawful to carry around simply to intimidate and scare people.
And just after the HuffPo cherry picked segment Scalia goes on to say that the decision will have to be made regarding things like hand held rocket launchers.

Shocked? Hardly. I read and watched his entire statements before posting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

24 seconds of a 10-15 minute interview? You so need to watch the rest. I'm guessing you'll be shocked.

Just prior to his saying, "...so yes there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. There were certain location limitations..." he spoke of some sort of 18th century battle axe which had been found unlawful to carry around simply to intimidate and scare people.
And just after the HuffPo cherry picked segment Scalia goes on to say that the decision will have to be made regarding things like hand held rocket launchers.

Shocked? Hardly. I read and watched his entire statements before posting.

I think the first amendment should be limited to only Right wing people the left should just shut the fuck up.

 

[Lakhota]

If Scalia believes there are limits, imagine what the other justices may be thinking.

 

[Dr Grump]

Of course there can be limits. Nuclear weapons anyone? Hell, the amendment itself can be rejected if there are enough votes. Of course a large number of politicians would be commiting career suicide in some states for doing so....

 

[Sallow]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

Scalia probably believes in limits within his immediate vicinity.

 

[Sallow]

If Scalia believes there are limits, imagine what the other justices may be thinking.

The conservative judges?

They believe in their own personal safety..and that of their immediate families.

That's it.

 

[Sallow]

24 seconds of a 10-15 minute interview? You so need to watch the rest. I'm guessing you'll be shocked.

Just prior to his saying, "...so yes there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. There were certain location limitations..." he spoke of some sort of 18th century battle axe which had been found unlawful to carry around simply to intimidate and scare people.
And just after the HuffPo cherry picked segment Scalia goes on to say that the decision will have to be made regarding things like hand held rocket launchers.

Shocked? Hardly. I read and watched his entire statements before posting.

I think the first amendment should be limited to only Right wing people the left should just shut the fuck up.

^ this says it all..

And proves the two posts I put up.

 

[Inthemiddle]

If Scalia believes there are limits, imagine what the other justices may be thinking.

I'm sure that Sotomayer thinks that time has worn the tail end off the amendment and that modern copies of the constitution are unwittingly omitting the "j/k lol" that the founders clearly intended. But who cares?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course there can be limits. Nuclear weapons anyone? Hell, the amendment itself can be rejected if there are enough votes. Of course a large number of politicians would be commiting career suicide in some states for doing so....

Nuclear weapons are not protected by the second amendment.

Hell, the amendment itself can be rejected if there are enough votes. Of course a large number of politicians would be commiting career suicide in some states for doing so

You forget one thing, American gun owners are not as as bending as the subjects of your country are. No American gun owner will turn in their guns. They will shoot anyone that try's to take them.

 

[Sallow]

If Scalia believes there are limits, imagine what the other justices may be thinking.

I'm sure that Sotomayer thinks that time has worn the tail end off the amendment and that modern copies of the constitution are unwittingly omitting the "j/k lol" that the founders clearly intended. But who cares?

The founders clearly intended that every white male landed gentry in the 13 colonies be in possession of a musket to form up into militias to repel land invasions and squash insurrections.

Or..army on the cheap.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Shocked? Hardly. I read and watched his entire statements before posting.

I think the first amendment should be limited to only Right wing people the left should just shut the fuck up.

^ this says it all..

And proves the two posts I put up.

You and others like you should be refrain from speaking. Me I have the teeth to support what I want to say.
Now if you have a gun you can too, but you want too restrict guns. Good luck with that.

 

[buckeye45_73]

If Scalia believes there are limits, imagine what the other justices may be thinking.

The conservative judges?

They believe in their own personal safety..and that of their immediate families.

That's it.

That was perfect projection my friend.. you mean like gun control advocate Rosie ODonnell who has an armed bodygaurd for her son. That was perfect projection my friend.
So republicans allow people to have guns and you make your statement? do you even know how to argue?

 

[Jackson]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President Barack Obama nor Congress appear willing to touch the issue of gun control.

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

More: Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

24 seconds of a 10-15 minute interview? You so need to watch the rest. I'm guessing you'll be shocked.

Just prior to his saying, "...so yes there are some limitations that can be imposed. What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time. There were certain location limitations..." he spoke of some sort of 18th century battle axe which had been found unlawful to carry around simply to intimidate and scare people.
And just after the HuffPo cherry picked segment Scalia goes on to say that the decision will have to be made regarding things like hand held rocket launchers.

I saw the interview and thought he was great. Of course there has to be limitations. Judge Scalia was open and honest and an asset on the bench.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

If Scalia believes there are limits, imagine what the other justices may be thinking.

I'm sure that Sotomayer thinks that time has worn the tail end off the amendment and that modern copies of the constitution are unwittingly omitting the "j/k lol" that the founders clearly intended. But who cares?

The founders clearly intended that every white male landed gentry in the 13 colonies be in possession of a musket to form up into militias to repel land invasions and squash insurrections.

Or..army on the cheap.

The militia are the people the militia owned their own firearms, the militia and the regular army had the same type of firearms.

The second amendment does not say
A well regulated militia by congress being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

It says

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
The founders did not want a standing army that's why they had a militia that consisted of civilians.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Of course there can be limits. Nuclear weapons anyone? Hell, the amendment itself can be rejected if there are enough votes. Of course a large number of politicians would be commiting career suicide in some states for doing so....

Legally the only way the 2nd gets rejected is if a new amendment is put forth and 37 States vote for it. As for limits and limits on location, yes there are. One can not own a fully automatic weapon in 13 States and in the rest one must get a Federal license.

As for the supposed assault weapons, they are clearly covered by the 39 ruling and the recent ones. They are EXACTLY what the 2nd covers. military style weapons are the precise weapons covered by the amendment as affirmed in 39 and at least 2 cases since then.

That would include, at the very least 30 round magazines. Not sure if the military uses 60 round magazines and I know they don' use 100.

Neither appeal to me because they would likely result in jams and failures to load. The weight of the magazine would pull the magazine out of the well unless very carefully designed and the spring that would be required is hard to get right at such numbers and weight.

Hell my 30 round magazines for my M1 carbine are almost to big. The weight of the magazine pulls at it in the magazine well.