Scalia States Guns Can Obviously Be Regulated: Justice Scalia Was Stating The DUH!!!!

July 30th, 2012

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia

….there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

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.

“It will have to be decided in future cases,” Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also “locational limitations” on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. “We’ll see,” he said. ‘”It will have to be decided.”

As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18^th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne,” he told host Chris Wallace.

In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer. “You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can’t be a pig,” said Scalia, of the court’s decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health insurance a tax. “There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax.”

Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had given no thought to retiring. “My wife doesn’t want me hanging around the house,” he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. “Of course I would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to undo” what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.

National Journal

Supreme Court Decides Second
Amendment Case

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court considered the following question:

1) Do D.C. Code Section 7-2502.02(a)(4), which generally bars the registration of handguns;

2) Section 22-4504(a), which bars carrying a pistol without a license;

3) Section 7-2507.02, which requires that all lawfully owned firearms be kept unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

The Court concluded that the Second Amendment does establish an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense and hunting. The Court concluded that the D.C. gun ban could not stand. At the same time, the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to:

A) prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons,

B) prohibit guns in schools or public buildings,

C) ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership.