Tuesday, December 18, 2012

The right to bear arms is not absolute.

One thing that's driving me crazy about the post-Newtown debate is that wingers keep talking about guns as though there are absolutely no legal restrictions on their ownership and use, whatsoever, and never have been. This is ridiculous.

 “Like most rights, the right se­cured by the Sec­ond Amend­ment is not un­lim­ited...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” —“pro­hibit­ing the car­ry­ing of ‘dan­ger­ous and un­usual weapons.’
That was written by noted left-wing gun hater Antonin Scalia.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

While it's great that Scalia wrote that, never forget that Scalia's legal principles can be summed up as:

"Whatever decision will piss off liberals."

So, I'd not be surprised if Fat Tony used the case involving whatever legislation comes out of our latest gun-related mass murder to strike down all gun regulation. He'll no doubt base his ruling on a "principled" reading of the Second Amendment and the Commerce Clause.