Online users
???: Message   

What. An. Effing. NITWIT. ('Like shootin' a fish in a barrel.)
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

02/13/2020, 10:05:00

Author Profile Mail author Edit

Your View: Let's see what Justice Antonin Scalia said about assault weapons

Larry Harley | Abingdon, Virginia
2-3 minutes

It’s easy for Charles Thomas to take shots at me for things I didn’t say. I did NOT say, as he suggests, that the Second Amendment protects only the use of firearms in existence in the 18th century. I said, as did Justice Antonin Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment protects only the sorts of weapons in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted.

The Second Amendment states, “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.” Scalia states that the 18th-century militia would have been formed from a pool of citizens using their own weapons that were in common use at the time for self-defense and protection of home. (Heller, p. 52)

I quote Scalia: “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected [by the Second Amendment] were those ‘in common use at the time.’ We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” (Heller, p. 55)

Further, Scalia suggests that military-style weapons that were later developed and were not the sorts of weapons possessed by the citizenry in 1791 are not necessarily protected by the Second Amendment. Specifically, Scalia mentions machine guns and M-16 rifles. (Heller, p. 52, 55)

And, as for David taking up an AR-15 against Goliath; the last thing we need in this country is yet again glamorizing the use of a military-style assault weapon against an unarmed person or, in the case of Goliath, a person armed with only a sword and javelin.


Not so fast, there, Bucko. "In common use" refers to arms... in common use. Imagine that. AR-15s and the like are and have been in common use for at least 50 years.

Additionally, you really need to brush up on your Heller material. Scalia did not mince words:

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35-36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding." D.C. v. Heller (2008)


Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.

Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page