Et tu, Scalia?

Rate this post

Scalia opens door for gun-control legislation, extends slow burning debate – July 29, 2012

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday, the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.
Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”
“We’ll see,” he said.
Scalia’s  comments follow the July 20 massacre at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater in which the alleged gunman, with the help of a semi-automatic weapon and an ammunition clip that could hold as many as 100 rounds, killed 12 and wounded 59 others.
His comments also follow those of lawmakers who have called for tougher gun-related laws in the wake of the shootings – most recently New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats who said Sunday they will introduce legislation this week to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet, as was done before the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.”
They are scheduled to announce the bill to the public Monday outside City Hall in New York City.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Republican turned independent, has been among the most vocal on the issue since the mass shooting. …
Congress passed a 10-year ban on assault-style weapons that expired in 2004, but there has since been no real interest among Capitol Hill lawmakers to reinstitute a ban.
On Wednesday, Obama talked about possible changes, but the following day Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he couldn’t fit the gun control debate into the schedule.
Asked if the Senate might debate the issue next year, Reid said, “Nice try.”
The president was not specific about what measures he’d like to see enacted when he touched on the issue in a speech to the National Urban League. He affirmed his belief in Americans’ right to own guns, but he singled out assault rifles as better suited for the battlefield.
“I believe the Second Amendment guarantees an individual the right to bear arms,” he said. “But I also believe that a lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not on the streets of our cities.”
Obama also called for stepped-up background checks for people who want to purchase guns and said he would also seek a national consensus on combating violence.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney clarified Thursday that the president is not necessarily talking about new laws.
Scalia said exceptions to gun rights were recognized when the Second Amendment was written, including a tort that prohibited people from carrying a “really horrible weapon just to scare people like a head ax or something.”
Republicans have largely said new laws are not the answer. Romney, pressed on the gun control issue in an NBC News interview during his visit in London, said changing laws won’t “make all bad things go away.” “I don’t happen to believe that America needs new gun laws,” he said.
Romney said a lot of what alleged shooter James Holmes did was clearly against the law. “But the fact that it was against the law did not prevent it from happening,” he said.
According to a Gallup poll in 1990, 78 percent of those surveyed said laws covering the sale of firearms should be stricter, while 19 percent said they should remain the same or be loosened.
By the fall of 2004 support for tougher laws had dropped to 54 percent. In last year’s sounding, 43 percent said they should be stricter, and 55 percent said they should stay the same or be made more lenient.
Scalia, in his wide-ranging interview with Fox News also repeated his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority opinion this summer that largely upheld President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, particularly the part that called the consequence for non-compliance a tax, not a penalty. “You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig,” he said. “It can’t be a pig. … There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax.”

Please follow and like us:

0 responses to “Et tu, Scalia?

  1. begone luciferian new order,,,

  2. Totally deceived and deluded….
    ….and Cheney just came out and said Sarah Palin was a mistake !
    They must read the Gallop ‘Pole’ (of leftist-progressives)

  3. Lifetime tenure is supposed to prevent this kind of kissing-up, so what the heck happened?

  4. Time to stock up on ammo…

  5. its true that if guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns, always wanted to be an outlaw

    • Just heard on the news a homeowner shot someone that broke into his home (close to my house). The other intruder ran off after that. Score one for the good guy!

  6. I read somewhere that Chicago has one of toughest laws on gun control in the country, but that hasn’t stopped the killings every saturday night.

    • They, along with NY & DC, have very strict gun controls. Doesn’t stop the gang and criminal shootings one bit…

  7. Just look what gun control has done for Mexico.

  8. Criminals pay no heed to laws anyway.
    That’s why they are criminals.

  9. Richard T. Fowler

    Anonymous wrote at 9:22 am, “Lifetime tenure is supposed to prevent this kind of kissing-up, so what [. . .] happened?”
    U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort“.
    Basically you are arguing that due to lifetime tenure (which tenure is still subject to impeachment, trial and expulsion by Congress for, basically ‘behaving badly’ — U.S. Const., Art. III, Sec. 1), Scalia should have no hesitation whatsoever about going on “Fox News Sunday” and proclaiming that the militia of the several States should be entitled to have everything that the standing U.S. Army has, in order to be able to effectively resist them if they should happen to … um … shall we say, “act up”.
    If you were in Scalia’s position, knowing that neither you nor your employer, the U.S.S.C., have any divisions to back up your fightin’ words … and that even if they did, Roberts just voted for Obamacare and Kennedy is not exactly noted for being a strong conservative, and you would need four of them on your side to approve any use of any hypothetical force by the Court to protect you …
    Would you go on “Fox News Sunday” and make such a statement?
    Talk about Brutus … If I were in Scalia’s position, I’d be thinking, “Four of ’em voted with me on the D.C. case where I authored the majority opinion saying that the Second Amendment is to empower the militia to resist a standing U.S. army. But I’m really the only one up here who’s runnin’ my yap about this in the media …. I wonder how many of these jokers really agree with me, and how many are just frontin’ … all hat and no cattle. And ditto for the Senate Republicans — of whom I need at least, lemme see, 33 of the 47 on my side to prevent getting convicted for bad behavior and expelled from the Court.”


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.