Another reminder that the SCOTUS is no friend of gun owners

[lonestarag]

From WSJ piece: “We’ll see,” said Justice Scalia, referring to the need to wait on a court case that gets at the question. He then volunteered that the second amendment refers to the right to “keep and bear” arms, so that it “does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried…It doesn’t apply to cannons.”

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales

[BHG1978]

"Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons."

What part of "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is he missing?


menacing hand-held weapons." what, like a hammer, a baseball bat, a walking cane, a hedge trimmer?

[ShotgunBlast]

"menacing hand-held weapons." what, like a hammer, a baseball bat, a walking cane, a hedge trimmer?

I have been known to run with scissors. I am truly a menace to society.

[Kreutz]

From WSJ piece: “We’ll see,” said Justice Scalia, referring to the need to wait on a court case that gets at the question. He then volunteered that the second amendment refers to the right to “keep and bear” arms, so that it “does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried…It doesn’t apply to cannons.”

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales

Well, conservatives say that want a literal interpretation of the Consitution...and thats the most literal analysis of the 2A I'd ever seen I must admit.

If you think about it, yeah, I guess to bear them you must hold them on your person...hmmm....

[Jamie]

Also, Scalia -- in another article on the interview -- cites that the Founders were ok with preventing someone from carrying menacing hand-born weapons like headaxes.

And, again, each and every Constitutional right has limits. 2A is no different.

I should also point out that SCOTUS has held that there is an American DUTY -- not right -- to disobey unjust laws.

[gunderwood]

From WSJ piece: “We’ll see,” said Justice Scalia, referring to the need to wait on a court case that gets at the question. He then volunteered that the second amendment refers to the right to “keep and bear” arms, so that it “does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried…It doesn’t apply to cannons.”

Really?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Gonzales

Well, conservatives say that want a literal interpretation of the Consitution...and thats the most literal analysis of the 2A I'd ever seen I must admit.

If you think about it, yeah, I guess to bear them you must hold them on your person...hmmm....

That's your modern bias on interpreting it rather than the historical reality. The bearing of arms never required the physical requirement of picking them up. Many, many examples.

Using detailed information provided by Loyalist spies, the grenadier companies searched the small town for military supplies. When they arrived at Ephraim Jones's tavern, by the jail on the South Bridge road, they found the door barred shut, and Jones refused them entry. According to reports provided by local Tories, Pitcairn knew cannon had been buried on the property. Jones was ordered at gunpoint to show where the guns were buried. These turned out to be three massive pieces, firing 24-pound shot, that were much too heavy to use defensively, but very effective against fortifications, with sufficient range to bombard the city of Boston from other parts of nearby mainland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battles_of ... a_supplies

Edit: as I noted in another thread, IIRC, those pieces at the time had a max range approaching 2.0 miles. (correct as that should be around 2 miles per this source: http://www.nps.gov/fosu/planyourvisit/u ... Cannon.pdf). It was bothering me as I was thinking about what a 24lbs gun should do and the original number I remember of 20 seemed to much. Sorry about that.

[SHMIV]

Well, conservatives say that want a literal interpretation of the Consitution...and thats the most literal analysis of the 2A I'd ever seen I must admit.

If you think about it, yeah, I guess to bear them you must hold them on your person...hmmm....

Except, I don't have to hold something on my person in order to bear it.

Merriam-Webster defines "Bear":( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bear )

transitive verb
1a : to move while holding up and supporting (something)
b: to be equipped or furnished with (something)
c: behave, conduct <bearing himself well>
d: to have as a feature or characteristic <bears a likeness to her grandmother>
e: to give as testimony <bear false witness>
f: to have as an identification <bore the name of John>
g: to hold in the mind or emotions <bear malice>
h: disseminate
i: lead, escort
j: render, give

2a : to give birth to
b : to produce as yield
c (1) : to permit growth of (2) : contain <oil-bearing shale>

3a : to support the weight of : sustain
b : to accept or allow oneself to be subjected to especially without giving way <couldn't bear the pain> <I can't bear seeing you cry>
c : to call for as suitable or essential <it bears watching>
d : to hold above, on top, or aloft
e : to admit of : allow
f : assume, accept

4: thrust, press

Take definition 1b. Physically speaking, I can equip, or furnish, myself with 30 cannon and a Sherman tank. That doesn't mean that I must be able to lift them.

Full disclosure: in order to save on space, I only included the transitive verb portion of the definition.

[Kreutz]

I stand corrected. Again.

I don't see anything wrong with private ownership of serious heavy duty weapons in theory...but then again I wouldn't automatically disarm felons or the mentally ill by statute either, which seems to put me in the minority.

[SHMIV]

I stand corrected. Again.

I don't see anything wrong with private ownership of serious heavy duty weapons in theory...but then again I wouldn't automatically disarm felons or the mentally ill by statute either, which seems to put me in the minority.

Well, Kreutz, being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong. I'm inclined to agree with you, to some extent. If some guy is so violent that we can't trust him with weaponry, then he should be hanged, anyway.

[Kreutz]

Well, Kreutz, being in the minority doesn't necessarily make you wrong. I'm inclined to agree with you, to some extent. If some guy is so violent that we can't trust him with weaponry, then he should be hanged, anyway.

Hah, true enough, but I was thinking more along the lines of both categories despite stereotypes are no more violent than anyone else. Many non-violent felons out there, and the mentally ill are usually victims of violence, not perpetrators.

I can see the rationale in striiping violent felons of their 2A right on a temporary to permenent basis however. I just don't think the felon label should carry the same weight for everyone who many not have ever shown an inclination to violence.

[Jamie]

I just don't think the felon label should carry the same weight for everyone who many not have ever shown an inclination to violence.

Heck, I feel an inclination to violence every time I watch MSNBC.

[Kreutz]

Cancelled cable a year ago, haven't missed it since. Saves me a c-note every month.