RIP: Antonin Scalia, Supporter Of Gun Control

[SecularMotion]

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited...". It is "...not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

"Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

"We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.' "

[pablo_marmol]

1. ***

[Human101948]

2. You are in disagreement with his opinions on this issue?

You are for arming felons and the mentally ill?

[Lurks Often]

3. The OP rarely responds to any questions, he/she is mostly a drive by poster

[TeddyR]

4. Scalia

Got it exactly right in Heller. Not much to argue with in that decision.

[jimmy the one]

5. duplicity of scalia

scalia: "... Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time". We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons.'

Dangerous & unusual weapons were indeed prohibited in many early 1800's state constitutions, inter alia referring to HANDGUNS, which were creating the bulk of the crime problem.
You must understand how duplicitous & devious that scam artist scalia was (no brilliant mind, barf). He cites above miller while trying to affirm an individual rkba: Miller (an earlier case) said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those "in common use at the time".

Observe in context, the duplicity of con artist scalia, his out of context use of 'in common use': Supreme Court, 1939 Miller decision:.. the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

The Miller justices were not contending any individual right to keep & bear firearms in 'common use at the time', but were supporting the militia interpretation of 2ndA by citing the militia act of 1792 whereby citizens were obliged to bring their own firearms to militia duty. Firearms in common use at the time would've been predominantly single shot muskets, single shot pistols, & far lesser extent single shot rifled muskets.

Furthermore, & more Damning, is this paragraph also from 1939 Miller supreme court decision:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power -- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

[beevul]

6. You're aren't very good at this james...

Supreme Court, 1939 Miller decision:.. the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

You claim duplicity on the part of another, while trying some duplicity of your own. You read "at the time" as "at that time", and suggest anyone that doesn't is duplicitous, without ever actually uttering those words.

You're not very good at this james, and you never were.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such {militia} forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

And then you post that while ignoring the fact that in order to draw from a body of people legally identified as "the people", who will bring their own arms when drawn, that the body of that group known as "the people" must not be forbidden from keeping those arms. Which happens to mirror exactly, with what the second amendment actually says.

Like I said, you aren't very good at this. You can argue whatever you like, but the facts are going to beat you every time until you start making arguments that align with them.