U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia outraged conservatives with his remarks on gun control and the Second Amendment this morning in a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace.
Scalia stated that the court may issue gun control rulings in the future due to “precedent” indicating that within the context of the 18th century the Framers of the Constitution allowed for local restrictions on guns and bans on certain types of weapons.
Conservatives immediately cried foul.
In the comment section of the story as reported by The Blaze, conservative reaction to Scalia’s remarks ranged from stunned to outraged. One reader wrote,
Scalia, strict constructionist? If he believes there‘s limits to gun ownership then our republic is finished because he’s the alleged ‘conservative’. The other four communists would start confiscating weapons immediately if they had their way.
And I always thought the second amendment would protect us from government,seems it’s the other way around and the government will use it,the second amendment ,to protect itself from us.
That’s the first step,round up all the guns and tyranny will reign,sounds like a plan eh Barry?
It’s gonna be a real bitch rounding them up.
Justice Scalia has sold out to the Marxists the same way Roberts did. His words on the 2nd Amendment are wrong. Any intelligent person (which Scalia isn‘t or he’s a dishonest) can read the and Amendment and see that there are no words placing restrictions on the People. George Washington was asked if there were any limitations on the weapons an American citizen may have and he said,”NO! They may keep anything necessary to overthrow a tyrannical Government.”
The American Republic is dead. We now live in a Police State, run by an “Elite” group that pass laws for the People, but that exempt themselves from those same laws…
Still another wrote,
“It will have to be decided” whether or not the government can regulate certain types of guns. No, Justice Scalia, it has already been decided. The 2nd Amendment emphatically states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It does not say eliminated, it does not say banned, it does not say terminated, it says infringed. Please look up the definition of the word infringe, and you have the decision. You, along with the rest of our governing bodies have absolutely no authority to regulate, eliminate, penalize, tax, or in any other way INFRINGE on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. If you are so interested in 18th century precedents on the matter why don’t you research the writings of people like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason?
The last writer, quoted immediately above, appears to have the factual evidence to support his argument. If Scalia wishes to consider the 18th century context, who better to consult than the Framers themselves who had a lot to say about the necessity of an armed citizenry and the perpetual diligence of the people to prevent government from attempting to take away their right to keep and bear arms.
The fact that some local governmental authorities passed minor gun control laws is no indication of Supreme Court precedent or the views of the Framers. If the court at the time was silent about those laws it was not due to their consent but due to the fact that no one had brought a specific case before them that challenged the constitutionality of those laws.
Further, the Framers often decried some of what they saw happening in the various states which, in their view, was inconsistent with the original intent of the Constitution. They also warned about the failure of the citizens to exercise eternal diligence to insure that governments, local and federal, adhered strictly to the words of the Constitution in order to protect and defend freedom.
This writer has often harped on the fact that rule number one of constitutional interpretation is that in order to understand what a phrase in the document means, first turn to the Framers themselves who told us in their numerous pronouncements precisely what they meant by the words and phrases they used to form the Constitution.
Invariably Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, Mason, Samuel Adams and the other Founding Fathers stated with utmost clarity that in their view one of the most dangerous things that can happen in a society is the disarming of citizens, that armed citizens are the best protection against tyrannical government, even our own, and that one aspect of tyranny is the attempt by government to regulate, restrict, or ban the right of citizens to keep and use firearms.
Scalia’s failure to mention the words of the Framers themselves when speaking about firearms is to many conservatives an indefensible and inexcusable omission.
OF SPECIAL INTEREST
A new entry in my regular series Musings After Midnight is now posted at my blog, The Liberty Sphere. It’s titled “So What Was Roberts REALLY Up To In His ObamaCare Ruling?” Don’t miss it!
Visit my ministry site at Martin Christian Ministries.
Subscribe by clicking the links at the top of the page, or below, and you will receive free notifications of new articles plus a free newsletter.