This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
index

Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court

Posted on: February 13th, 2013

Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, decrying America’s demonization of guns, is predicting that the parade of new gun control laws, cheered on by President Obama, will hit the Supreme Court soon, possibly settling for ever the types of weapons that can be owned.

Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets.

And the wily judge suggested to an audience of Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University’s Lisner Auditorium Tuesday night that he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he’s softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns.

Print Friendly and PDF
Continue reading at washingtonexaminer.com
Tags: , , , ,
Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • http://www.facebook.com/jim.kaye.9 Jim Kaye

    You
    want a common sense law that keeps firearms out of the hands of
    criminals and the mentally ill. We like gun dealers or conceal carry
    permit holders be finger printed and have a federal background check
    done for every law abiding gun owner. In return we are given a FFL. We
    would be allowed to own any rifle or handgun made!!! They lift the ban
    on automatic rifles made after 1987. They can keep the tax stamps for
    automatic weapons. We can order directly from manufactures or
    distributors. We keep our own records of sales or transfers for a period
    of 10 years. This way we retain our privacy and our rights to own
    firearms. It closes all the loopholes for sales. It puts the states at
    the burden of contacting the government to find out if we have an FFL
    and revoking it if convicted of a felony or are found mentally unfit to
    own a firearm. They can increase the penalties for trafficking firearms
    and it makes it easy for each and every single one of us to sell or
    transfer a firearm to other law abiding citizens. No license No
    sale!!!!! Done!!!!

    • polmutant

      any person that took the pledge of allegance to America. and serves the system under an illegal commie pink kenyan muslim is mentally and morally unfit. stupid idea. REPEAL GCA, ATF, NFA. and you find the mentallly/moaraly unfit far gone. BULLSHIT that i should be taxed with a lisence. go back to commie pinko land, and keep drinking the koolaide. the reason for the unfit is WELFARE. if you do not work you do not eat.

  • foxxybey

    Hope it gets there before the islamist-in-chief appoints another nazi to follow him?

    • polmutant

      you mean communiist muslim. I nazi would uphold the constitution as a nazi is a nationalist. not a globalist.

      • Hans

        Wrong again ! A NAZI is a National Socialist. Hitler cooperated with the MUZLIMS in the Near East , like Egypt, during WW II. Learn your history, before you make statements about NAZIs. Hitler was also a globalist, because he wanted to conquer the rest of the world together with the Japanese. Hitler did not uphold the German constitution of the Weimar republic either !!!

        • polmutant

          yes Hitler did cooperate with muslims, but the form {body} of the word NAZI as by your definition would be the same as the word PATRIOT today. A Patriot is for a strong constitution, and no foreigners. at the end of the day the root of all the isms is Marxism. this is the reasoning that through social control mankind can be controled/programed to an easily controlable species. It stands afront to the notion of LIFE LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF PROPERTY. even this phase as known today/change to life liberty and pursuit of happiness is regulation. without property there is no reason to work. for what would i work? to enrich another? happiness is a choice whch can be made in unpleasant situations. it is intangible. property is tangible. so in this case your philosiphy only stands on your choice of defintion of words. another ism.
          the weimer republic bit the dust through regulation which equals damnation, it is the same as USA experiences now. when one chooses subsidy either personal or corporate is the same as saying the LIVING GOD cannot provide. fiat money is initself an ism of form. without the fiat {worthlessness} the worthless that need it could not survive. also this republic was not a repiblic within itself it was established by what is now known as UN, did not Germany suffer badly after ww1? did it not have massive international regulation on it? it was not a republic but rather a regional territory {province}. this should also be considered, as in this case it would be no more than what founding fathers did to England {revolutionary war}.
          one must consider the natural laws of dominace over the printed interpretation of mans view of history. why is the pledge of allegance removed from USA schools? every generation has its own interpretation of events. for example; SOCIAL SECURITY belies investment, considering it is unconstitutional. and sheoples who where to cowardly to stand against this ism paid in to this pyramid, their money was spent on other items rather than invested for theor retirement returns. now these same sheople have joined the ism saying “i have paid into this, and i want my promise.” have they not now joined the ism and stand as an ism, to make sure they steal others money as they have allowed theirs to be stolen? looking forward for your reply.

          • GridRider

            Sir, a “patriot” is simply someone who is devoted to his country/government. It doesn’t provide any insight into whether such allegiance is morally good or bad. Being loyal to an evil government or nation makes you patriotic and evil. EVERY dictator has his band of “patriots”.

            NAZI is a word derived/constructed from the first couple of syllables of the correct name in German… Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. It describes the party as a whole and doesn’t in any way define the term patriot.

            Nazi Germany was at the forefront of “social engineering”, eugenics and the creation of a “master race”. They were anti-communist AND anti-capitalist. They were nationalists and socialists who believed private property could only exist if it benefited the State. Individuals only had such rights as deemed appropriate by the Party and which benefited the Party. For the most part the leaders were atheists and occultists who didn’t care much for religion but would most definitely use it when it benefited the Party.

            You might also remember Hitler scrapped the constitution, called the military forces together and required them to swear allegiance to HIM rather than the state or constitution. In my mind, on that day, the only German patriots were those who refused to take such an oath.

            Bottom-line… Hitler’s Nazi Party is about as far from the ideals and values of true Americans as Stalin’s Soviet Union or Mao’s Red China. And, their “patriots” are my enemies.

      • foxxybey

        Yea you could be right, either way, bad for America. God Bless Friend:

  • marineh2ominer

    Justice Scalia should be working with congress to Impeach those justices whose oaths to protect and defend the constitution is violated by their ideologies . I can think of three off hand .

    • douber1

      i hope it does not go to the supreme court
      we will get the shaft like we did the last time with baby roberts and co.
      justice scalia is a turn coat and cannot be trusted
      he is great friend of oreo

    • jamohio

      I totally agree with you!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000124607818 Michael Wilson

    I hope the “islamist-in-chief” has no chance to appoint “another nazi to follow him.”

  • lokiswife

    Good! Hurry up and get this gun control settled so the focus can go back onto Benghazi and the truth (if if can be found) as to what our supposed commander in chief did. First reports said he went to bed early that night as he had to leave early the next morning on a campaign flight to Nevada. That was more important to him than doing his job as CinC. Panetta’s testimony was pretty damning to him and Hillary’s testimony left a lot of questions unanswered. Obama and his motley crew are specialists at using whatever crisis they can to detract Americans from the real issues….

  • armydadtexas1

    The bottom line for those who wish to banter over whether the Tyrrant in the White House is a Nazi or Communist, it that the United States Supreme court make it Clear, that when words like SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED in describing a Right, that is exactly what it means. Make it clear, GUN RIGHTS are not to be fk’d with by the federal government in any way shape or form. It is time to tell B.HO the BOZO, thus far and NO MORE.

    • oldguy199

      That should INCLUDE local and state Govs too. NO small or large Gov should be allowed to LIVE that even thinks about touching ANY of our RIGHTS…. Justice MUST be swift and violent

      • Steven

        Regardless of what the Supreme Court says, it DOES include state and local governments. The SAME Congress proposed all 10 amendments now known as the Bill of Rights. In the 1st amendment, they limited the application to the federal government by stating CONGRESS shall make no law.. using a term that refers elsewhere in the then new Constitution to the Congress created by the Constitution. By NOT including similar language in the remaining amendments, the term SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED must mean shall not be infringed BY ANYONE. Had they intended to limit the application to the federal government, they would have said so, as they did in the 1st amendment. Remember, these amendments were drafted in a single session of a single Congress by men who were involved in, or at minimum familiar with, the drafting and ratification of the Constitution that was less than 1 term old at the time.

  • pissed off conservative

    i dont know if i trust scalia yet..he has made some disturbing comments on the 2nd ammendment in the past??

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jim-Vomacka/100000299446344 Jim Vomacka

    The world would be a much better place without the likes of obama feinstein pelosi and any other people in government that do not believe that they must obey the Constitution of the United States. If they don’t like it they can go to china to live.

    • douber1

      they would not last all pukes

  • mogul264

    I’m not a Constitutionalist professor, as supposedly is Zerobama, but it seems to me that ANY portable weapon is covered under the Art. 2 of the Bill of Rights! Even though it was written in the late 1700;s, it WAS speaking of the current portable arms available then, and NOT just for hunting pieces, even though they used them for both!

    In addition, the states, and cities, with the MOST restrictive ownership laws, are the ones with the worst murders and armed robberies problems! Conversely, the states, and the cities (Re: Kennesaw, Ga!), with the LEAST restrictive or NO ownership laws have the fewest problems.

    Lately, the mass-murderers have all been liberals or loners, so, should we desire to restrict ANY gun possession, we should estrict arms from professed liberals and loonies! Just saying…………!

    • JJM123

      And the list for restricted possession was updated in November.

  • jb80538

    Gee I thought the SC had already decided that Amerwicans had the constitutional right to own firearms.

    • oldguy199

      Wh haven’t the people that made those ilegal “laws” been executed yet???

    • GridRider

      They did. What we will see now are cases involving the “infringement” of that individual right… or whether or not we have the individual right to purchase an AR-15, 30 round magazines, or more serious military style hardware. As you know, the founders didn’t exclude the heavy firepower of the time, cannons, mortars, warships, etc. when the affirmed our inherent right to keep and bear arms by spelling it out in the Second Amendment. Strictly speaking, I don’t think there is a legal grounds for any of this stuff to get to the SCOTUS… but it will.

      • jamohio

        The federal government can make no law or regulation on arms for Citizens!! The Second Amendment states that fact clearly!! Our current federal government fears our power thru the Second Amendment and wants to neutralize us as best they can!! They simply Do Not Have Any Authority on private ownership of arms!!

  • oldguy199

    Should be (today) hearing a short trial titled “conspiracy to commit TREASON…….” with a rope later TODAY

  • oldguy199

    They better make the right decision and QUICKLY because if they want to string on (even for a few days) there will be major problems

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

    With due respect to his honour he does not even have that right. It is clearly described in the Constitution how, when and were the document can be changed any thing else is illegal.

  • Guest

    Our Supreme court Justices should be leading the way to impeachment of any and every executive order ever enacted, as they are all unconstitutional.

  • http://www.facebook.com/whisper.atnight.5 Whisper Atnight

    Our Supreme Court Justices should be leading the way to impeachment, and they should be nullifying every executive order ever enacted, as they are all unconstitutional.

  • mickey

    The Supreme Court is useless, and should be disbanded. They are only the extention of the Obama regime. They are no longer partial to undertaking the wishes of the American people, they have become beholding to Obamas wishes, in other words Obama the Muslim, is controling most of our government. He has placed, (and is placing) the most radical bunch of misfits against our constitution he can muster, into (his) form of government. The GOP is failing to do it’s job, of protecting the people of the U.S. from a radical muslim takeover of our government.

  • mickey

    It’s getting scary folks, with the radical countries that now have nuclear weapons capable of reaching the U.S. and ( Obama the Muslim) downsizing our military, it’s almost as if he’s telling the rogue nations to come and get us. With N.Korea, Iran, and even Russia, against us, it’s not a pretty scenario I’d like to paint. I would be beefing up our military, and Obama wanting to take our guns away, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see what in hell is going on. With a great majority of our citizenry armed, any nation would have to think twice about any interaction against us. We have to stay strong, and the only way is to get rid of greatest threat from within our government, IMPEACH OBAMA, and keep America strong.

  • jamohio

    The simple answer is; We The People can keep any arm available! The framers of our rights knew weapon technology would always advance and that is why no specific weapon is named! They understood that naming any arm could limit the ability of We The People to defeat tyranny from our own government which would be armed with the best arms available! They’re wording is precise. Shall Not Be Infringed!! If the court sides with gun grabbers they will have willingly abdicated their positions on the court and at that point I will personally declare it a MOOT COURT not to be followed!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1094764016 Sam Fry

    “he’s softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns”
    He must mean Roberts!

    Read more: http://patriotoutdoornews.com/5455/antonin-scalia-says-gun-control-is-heading-to-supreme-court#ixzz2L4dBtWOL
    “