- Dec 20, 2013
- 12,340
I've cited Scalia's reasoning previously, but I found this seven minute clip and thought some here would appreciate hearing it in his own words:
Scalia's Reasoning for Limits on the Second Amendment
- Thread starter fred333
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
I will watch it later, but his dicta from the bench is still bedeviling us.
- Feb 19, 2013
- 18,760
I remember that interview. Reasonable limitations.
Purpose v Textual.
Purpose v Textual.
jollymon
Active Member
We lost a Great Jurists when he passed , His mind and thought process will never been seen again
And he would be partially incorrect. Just because someone put limitations on it in the early days, doesn't mean they were not running afoul of the Constitution and the Framers original intent. "Shall not be infringed" is really quite a simple thing to understand with a clear meaning, it's too bad almost everyone seems to have forgotten that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Mr H
Banana'd
He hit an important point, IMO, when he stated that the protection (paraphrasing) extended to arms that could be reasonably borne.
What I still get bugged by, is that the states have been allowed to set their own standards for those same "reasonably borne" arms.
10A does not apply, here, thus "... shall not be infringed" is the standard.
Kharn
Ultimate Member
Matlack
Scribe
- Dec 15, 2008
- 8,558
The 1 thing he forgot to mention is that these rights are granted not by the constitution, it only reaffirms your rights, but by your creator, whoever you believe in or dont. These rights can not be given or taken by any other authority.
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
Yep, and putting 'limits' on the 2nd Amendment is the most abused phase also.
Who is doing the limiting? By definition the general assembly's, state government nor congress sets the limit. The 9th and 10th Amendment guarantee rights given by our creator.
Not alone, I miss Justice Scalia...early and often. He was brilliant. He was rational. I hope he sits among the angels.
Justice Gorsuch will prove his own worth in a similar fashion. So too, Justice Gorsuch will prove Trump's wisdom and good and patriotic intent.
The justice system...top to bottom and back to the top is imperfect. The Constitution of our United States is a man made document subjects to the whims and vagaries of our imperfect justice system. So too, space and time work against many a law and in fact against one or more G-d given rights. Just because we say it and feel it doesn't make it true nor does it compel a right answer from our imperfect legal system.
I admire Scalia's thought process. It is born of pragmatism and a devotion to the basis and original intent of the law. Far too many judges feel and act free of "the right thing" (which you and I may consider TRUTH) and are slaves to some misbegotten current social norm or political narrative when they determine their interpretation (wholly subjective) of the law.
I fear for our republic.
Let the record show we need to press as citizens for the nominated federal judge slate (Trump's nominees) to be promptly confirmed so they might sit the bench and influence case law/justice promptly. Anything less is unsatisfactory. Write, call and email your representatives.
Justice Gorsuch will prove his own worth in a similar fashion. So too, Justice Gorsuch will prove Trump's wisdom and good and patriotic intent.
The justice system...top to bottom and back to the top is imperfect. The Constitution of our United States is a man made document subjects to the whims and vagaries of our imperfect justice system. So too, space and time work against many a law and in fact against one or more G-d given rights. Just because we say it and feel it doesn't make it true nor does it compel a right answer from our imperfect legal system.
I admire Scalia's thought process. It is born of pragmatism and a devotion to the basis and original intent of the law. Far too many judges feel and act free of "the right thing" (which you and I may consider TRUTH) and are slaves to some misbegotten current social norm or political narrative when they determine their interpretation (wholly subjective) of the law.
I fear for our republic.
Let the record show we need to press as citizens for the nominated federal judge slate (Trump's nominees) to be promptly confirmed so they might sit the bench and influence case law/justice promptly. Anything less is unsatisfactory. Write, call and email your representatives.
mike_in_md
Ultimate Member
Originalism, textualism, purpose-ism...what about delay-ism?
Mr H
Banana'd
In related news, Notorious RBG has again threatened to not die any time soon.
Great idea!Anybody tried splashing some water on her?
As a Plan B, how about we send her to the ranch where JAS expired.
jcutonilli
Ultimate Member
- Mar 28, 2013
- 2,474
You seem to be part of the problem. It is not about figuring out new limits. The right is a preexisting right. The limits have already been set.
The hard part is figuring out exactly what those were and how to translate those limits to the current time. (i.e. just like we are not limited to muskets)
Mr H
Banana'd
Also, if you listen carefully near the end of the clip, Scalia suggests TPM are the likely areas that restrictions might be acceptable.
WeaponsCollector
EXTREME GUN OWNER
The fact is we cannot trust the courts to support and defend our liberty any more than we can trust congress or the president.
"All power in human hands is liable to be abused."
- James Madison
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
- James Madison
"All power in human hands is liable to be abused."
- James Madison
"The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted."
- James Madison
pcfixer
Ultimate Member
That's why William Blackstone and John Locke wrote about pre existence of a right that is inalienable right not limited by the GA, state or federal government. If an entity can give a right it also can take it away. When people understand everything you have including natural rights.
"Most scholars trace the phrase "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," in the American Declaration of Independence, to Locke's theory of rights, though other origins have been suggested."
"Blackstone taught that man is created by God and granted fundamental rights by God. Man’s law must be based on God’s law. Our Founding Fathers referred to Blackstone more than to any other English or American authority."
- Dec 20, 2013
- 12,340
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
-
-
-
-
Convicted For Building Guns; Judge says, “Do not bring the Second Amendment into this courtroom”- Started by Harrys
- Replies: 1
-
-
