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

[DontBeStupid]

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.

Really? And what Court ruling decided this?

Because last time I checked, you guys think "bear arms" means LITERALLY anything.

 

[whitehall]

Well duh...why are lefties surprised that there are limits to the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[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.

Really? And what Court ruling decided this?

Because last time I checked, you guys think "bear arms" means LITERALLY anything.

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980)

Firearm is defined as

Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as “"a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)
Firearms Law & Legal Definition

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The point is that civilians can no longer defend against the mightiest military in the world should it ever turn against them. Colonial days are over...

That's why our military had such trouble in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is why they had trouble in Vietnam. Thats why in Libya and Syria the Government had such overwhelming power the uprisings were crushed in a day. Right?

Once again for the slow and stupid, you want the 2nd Amendment to mean something else? Create your own amendment and get it past the States.

 

[Listening]

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

The four on the left are thinking they'd like to all climb in bed together.

What are you thinking ?

You're not.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No one is trying to take away our muskets.

Using your logic then the 1st Amendment does not apply to Television, Radio or the Internet. No pesky 1st Amendment rights are violated when a phone is wire tapped either. NO 4th Amendment rights are violated if someone video tapes you without your permission and Roe vs Wade is null and void as Abortions were not medical procedures in use when the Constitution was written.

 

[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....

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.

1) Who says that nuclear weapons are not protected by the second?
2) So you are not a country of laws then? So you do not believe in the constitution of the united states? Interesting...

 

[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....

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.

1) Who says that nuclear weapons are not protected by the second?
2) So you are not a country of laws then? So you do not believe in the constitution of the united states? Interesting...

The Federal Government defined by law what is a Firearm and the Courts cited that law when making rulings involving the 2nd Amendment. Pretty simple concept even for a sheep fucker like you to understand.

 

[Full-Auto]

No one is trying to take away our muskets.

Using your logic then the 1st Amendment does not apply to Television, Radio or the Internet. No pesky 1st Amendment rights are violated when a phone is wire tapped either. NO 4th Amendment rights are violated if someone video tapes you without your permission and Roe vs Wade is null and void as Abortions were not medical procedures in use when the Constitution was written.

 

[Dr Grump]

None of which are firearms move along before you mentally hurt yourself defending against me.

Where in the second does it mention firearms? I see the word arms....what defines an 'arm'...

 

[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.

1) Who says that nuclear weapons are not protected by the second?
2) So you are not a country of laws then? So you do not believe in the constitution of the united states? Interesting...

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 95 (1980)

Firearm is defined as

Under 26 USCA § 861 (a), firearms is defined as “"a shot gun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such firearm is included within the foregoing definition." United States v. Adams, 11 F. Supp. 216, 217 (S.D. Fla. 1935)
Firearms Law & Legal Definition

 

[Dr Grump]

Nuclear weapons are not protected by the second amendment.



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.

1) Who says that nuclear weapons are not protected by the second?
2) So you are not a country of laws then? So you do not believe in the constitution of the united states? Interesting...

The Federal Government defined by law what is a Firearm and the Courts cited that law when making rulings involving the 2nd Amendment. Pretty simple concept even for a sheep fucker like you to understand.

Cool, then you'll have a link to case law then...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

None of which are firearms move along before you mentally hurt yourself defending against me.

Where in the second does it mention firearms? I see the word arms....what defines an 'arm'...

Arms are firearms

 

[RetiredGySgt]

None of which are firearms move along before you mentally hurt yourself defending against me.

Where in the second does it mention firearms? I see the word arms....what defines an 'arm'...

The Us Congress defined what they are and the Supreme Court has used said laws in all of their rulings on the 2nd Amendment. Get it yet sheep fucker?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1) Who says that nuclear weapons are not protected by the second?
2) So you are not a country of laws then? So you do not believe in the constitution of the united states? Interesting...

The Federal Government defined by law what is a Firearm and the Courts cited that law when making rulings involving the 2nd Amendment. Pretty simple concept even for a sheep fucker like you to understand.

Cool, then you'll have a link to case law then...

It is already posted , or rather one of them, in this very thread.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

1) Who says that nuclear weapons are not protected by the second?
2) So you are not a country of laws then? So you do not believe in the constitution of the united states? Interesting...

The Federal Government defined by law what is a Firearm and the Courts cited that law when making rulings involving the 2nd Amendment. Pretty simple concept even for a sheep fucker like you to understand.

Cool, then you'll have a link to case law then...

You know which cases they are YOU and I have been through this a few times before.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

1) Who says that nuclear weapons are not protected by the second?
2) So you are not a country of laws then? So you do not believe in the constitution of the united states? Interesting...

The Federal Government defined by law what is a Firearm and the Courts cited that law when making rulings involving the 2nd Amendment. Pretty simple concept even for a sheep fucker like you to understand.

Cool, then you'll have a link to case law then...

Here, since I know you are to stupid to actually find it yourself.

Firearms Law & Legal Definition

 

[Dr Grump]

The Federal Government defined by law what is a Firearm and the Courts cited that law when making rulings involving the 2nd Amendment. Pretty simple concept even for a sheep fucker like you to understand.

Cool, then you'll have a link to case law then...

Here, since I know you are to stupid to actually find it yourself.

Firearms Law & Legal Definition

If you're gonna call someone stupid at least have the decency not to look so yourself...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Of course there are limits, Scalia only states the obvious. That some limits were likely Constitutional was made clear in Heller, such as restrictions concerning the mentally ill, convicted felons, and undocumented immigrants.

Jurisdictions may also restrict ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’:

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons. See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) …” (Emphasis added.)

DC v. Heller (2008).

Clearly, fully automatic rifles and grenade launchers are ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’ and Constitutionally subject to restriction.

Left to be determined, then, would be such issues as magazine capacity, waiting periods, purchase permits and licenses; as will as determining what it meant to ‘bear arms’ with regard to open carry, concealed carry, and so-called ‘gun-free zones’ restrictions.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Of course there are limits, Scalia only states the obvious. That some limits were likely Constitutional was made clear in Heller, such as restrictions concerning the mentally ill, convicted felons, and undocumented immigrants.

Jurisdictions may also restrict ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’:

Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons. See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769) …” (Emphasis added.)

DC v. Heller (2008).

Clearly, fully automatic rifles and grenade launchers are ‘dangerous and unusual weapons,’ and Constitutionally subject to restriction.

Left to be determined, then, would be such issues as magazine capacity, waiting periods, purchase permits and licenses; as will as determining what it meant to ‘bear arms’ with regard to open carry, concealed carry, and so-called ‘gun-free zones’ restrictions.

Did Heller over turn Lewis vs US or Miller vs US no it didn't and those court ruling point out what firearms are protected under the second amendment they must be of suitable use for military service.