Scalia: 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried

[^_^ 5,021]

Justice Antonin Scalia said there “are some limitations that can be imposed” on the purchase of guns but would not say whether a legislature could ban semi-automatic weapons or 100-round magazines.

...

Scalia noted that as to more specific restrictions on gun purchases, his opinion said those will have to be decided “in future cases.”

“Some undoubtedly are [permissible], because there were some that were acknowledged at the time” of the writing of the Constitution, he said on “Fox News Sunday.” “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.”

Scalia pointed out that the Second Amendment did not apply to “arms that cannot be hand-carried,” such as cannons.

...

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought. So we’ll see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240887-scalia-future-cases-could-establish-new-limitations-on-guns

[dalegg 143]

Okay excellent. We can agree that citizens shouldn't have canons or be allowed to own tanks. Its a starting point!

[rocks 494]

Okay excellent. We can agree that citizens shouldn't have canons or be allowed to own tanks. Its a starting point!

[^_^ 5,021]

Handheld nukes are ok though.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Scalia can go suck an egg.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Okay excellent. We can agree that citizens shouldn't have canons or be allowed to own tanks. Its a starting point!

Dude, you can take my Canon when you pry it from my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited July 30, 2012 by Sousuke

[rocks 494]

Dude, you can take my Canon when you pry it from my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!!!!

[james&olya 1,121]

...

“My starting point and probably my ending point will be what limitations are within the understood limitations that the society had at the time,” he said. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be bought.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/240887-scalia-future-cases-could-establish-new-limitations-on-guns

So muzzle-loaders are OK, they cannot be restricted. But since society then did not have assault rifles or any of our modern type guns then the framers of the constitution clearly were not talking about them. So any restriction society wants to place on them is quite reasonable by this way of thinking!

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

So muzzle-loaders are OK, they cannot be restricted. But since society then did not have assault rifles or any of our modern type guns then the framers of the constitution clearly were not talking about them. So any restriction society wants to place on them is quite reasonable by this way of thinking!

[Ban Hammer 13,726]

So muzzle-loaders are OK, they cannot be restricted. But since society then did not have assault rifles or any of our modern type guns then the framers of the constitution clearly were not talking about them. So any restriction society wants to place on them is quite reasonable by this way of thinking!

ok, as long as everyone speaks like it was 1776 when exercising the first amendment!

[slim 1,533]

Canons were privately owned at the time of the revolution. I'm curious where Scalia is getting these early gun control measures from.

So muzzle-loaders are OK, they cannot be restricted. But since society then did not have assault rifles or any of our modern type guns then the framers of the constitution clearly were not talking about them. So any restriction society wants to place on them is quite reasonable by this way of thinking!

The boys at Concord's North Bridge were armed with the "assault rifles" of the day and had matching kit to their British Regular counterparts. Isaac Davis' Acton Minute Company fielded smooth-bore muskets with bayonets (which were the real assault weapons of the day) and every man had a "high capacity cartridge box" affixed to his belt so they could trade fire - volley for volley - with the redcoats. The HUGE difference the minute company had over the lobsterbacks was they were well regulated and practiced with their shooting irons once a week. They could AIM and deliver accurate fire. They not only out-equipped the regular army (the army of THEIR government) but they out practiced them as well.

Modern guns were most certainly used during the revolution. Daniel Morgan raised a company of Riflemen from the frontier who made it to Boston - largely on foot! - in only three weeks. The vast majority of these men were armed with rifles capable of making hits at 250 yards.

Sometime on down the road, they faced an adversary in the form of General Simon Fraser at Saratoga and one of Morgan's Riflemen, Timothy Murphy, shot Fraser and turned the tide of not only the battle, but the war. Being used at Saratoga were a new form of rifle called the Ferguson rifle. It was breech loaded, just like our modern firearms.

While not exactly like what we have today, the seeds were sewn for modern riflery and all throughout the war, the army never had a significant technological advantage over the colonials. That is most noteworthy.

The civilians carried the same guns as the army.

When the founders wrote our constitution and the amendments they did so shortly after sending their British masters home. They did so using the same guns as their army. It's highly unlikely in the ten years following victory and the ratification of the amendments they somehow decided gun control was a good idea.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Canons were privately owned at the time of the revolution. I'm curious where Scalia is getting these early gun control measures from.

The boys at Concord's North Bridge were armed with the "assault rifles" of the day and had matching kit to their British Regular counterparts. Isaac Davis' Acton Minute Company fielded smooth-bore muskets with bayonets (which were the real assault weapons of the day) and every man had a "high capacity cartridge box" affixed to his belt so they could trade fire - volley for volley - with the redcoats. The HUGE difference the minute company had over the lobsterbacks was they were well regulated and practiced with their shooting irons once a week. They could AIM and deliver accurate fire. They not only out-equipped the regular army (the army of THEIR government) but they out practiced them as well.

Modern guns were most certainly used during the revolution. Daniel Morgan raised a company of Riflemen from the frontier who made it to Boston - largely on foot! - in only three weeks. The vast majority of these men were armed with rifles capable of making hits at 250 yards.

Sometime on down the road, they faced an adversary in the form of General Simon Fraser at Saratoga and one of Morgan's Riflemen, Timothy Murphy, shot Fraser and turned the tide of not only the battle, but the war. Being used at Saratoga were a new form of rifle called the Ferguson rifle. It was breech loaded, just like our modern firearms.

While not exactly like what we have today, the seeds were sewn for modern riflery and all throughout the war, the army never had a significant technological advantage over the colonials. That is most noteworthy.

The civilians carried the same guns as the army.

When the founders wrote our constitution and the amendments they did so shortly after sending their British masters home. They did so using the same guns as their army. It's highly unlikely in the ten years following victory and the ratification of the amendments they somehow decided gun control was a good idea.

The man who spared Washington......only to be sniped later....I feel sorry for him even though he's been dead for hundreds of years.

Sorry that was off topic. Your post remind me of the British sniper who could have killed Washington.

Edited July 31, 2012 by Sousuke

[Danno 1,228]

So muzzle-loaders are OK, they cannot be restricted. But since society then did not have assault rifles or any of our modern type guns then the framers of the constitution clearly were not talking about them. So any restriction society wants to place on them is quite reasonable by this way of thinking!

Dude there was a reason the founders did not use the term "guns" but rather "arms".......

They foresaw change yet the basic principle remained......

" The arms must be suitable to resist a tyrannical government effectively".

[slim 1,533]

" The arms must be suitable to resist a tyrannical government effectively".

Bingo!

[james&olya 1,121]

Dude there was a reason the founders did not use the term "guns" but rather "arms".......

They foresaw change yet the basic principle remained......

" The arms must be suitable to resist a tyrannical government effectively".

So you don't agree with Scalia? Would you allow land-mines, chemical weapons, RPG's, mortars, shoulder-fired SAM's? Those are all hand-carried and frequently used in modern warfare. How about helicopter gunships, attack fighters, cruise missiles and nukes? Where do you draw the line?