I don’t think there’s too much to be read into Justice Scalia’s statements appearing over at National Journal, in regards to which way an assault weapons ban would go if it appeared before the court. By the Heller “common use” test, an AR-15 should pass with flying colors, but that’s not to say it actually would. I wouldn’t feel comfortable with taking an assault weapons ban before the Court unless we got one or two more friendly votes. That way we can afford to lose a justice or two on a specific issue, and still have a winning majority.
9 thoughts on “Tea Leaves”
Comments are closed.
I agree, which makes the upcoming election all the more important. We are just a few court cases away from pounding a stake through the heart of gun control forever.
Keep dreaming, pal. Gun controllers only have to win once. We have to win every time. And they will always find a way to wordsmith their way around any SCOTUS decision, no matter how airtight the decision might seem.
Agreed; it’s a settled principle at this sort of level that judges don’t make strong, firm statements on particulars until they’ve been briefed by both sides and amicus curiae (“friend(s) of the court” like Clayton Cramer and other historians and lawyers).
That’s why, while acknowledging there are legitimate restrictions (a principle we don’t argue with, much), he won’t speculate on “assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines” but says “We’ll see,”, “It will have to be decided”, etc.
And those’ll probably first come up in decisions on state laws.
This anxious and uncertain speculation is why the Founders wrote “shall not be infringed” into the 2A. The Tenth Amendment leaves all “reasonable” regulation of the right to keep and bear arms to the States, respectively, and to the people.
I know, my dear friends, you don’t agree with this absolutist position, but it is clear that allowing the Federal government any power to infringe on the right whatsoever, regardless how small, “reasonable,” or “legitimate” it may seem, opens the door to the abuse we’ve experienced in the past and now fear for the near future.
The Founders did not intend for the supreme Court to decide what infringements by the federal government are reasonable. They made it clear: none are! It’s a prerogative of each State to determine for itself what’s reasonable. I can live with that. But to put my most important right subject to the whim of five unelected, unaccountable, unpredictable (Roberts), elitist egomaniacs with their own social agendas to impose on us peons…well, that’s why the Founders said “shall not be infringed.”
And, frankly, it’s why I have guns!
Respectfully, Arnie
P.S. – And this “reasonable regulation” allowance by Scalia for the feds is why I have always believed Heller was as much a defeat as a victory, for sown in it were the seeds for the eventual defeat of everything that it won.
Please, the rights of felons (true felons, those who commit crimes that place them beyond the pale) and the genuinely insane (the schizophrenic and bipolar who can’t be managed with medicine or won’t take it) to keep and bear arms can’t be infringed?
Do you think the Founders meant anything like that when they drafted and passed the Bill of Rights?
Not by the FEDERAL government, my friend. The Founders would be appalled by the suggestion that they empowered Congress with such intrusive micromanagement of a State (or local) prerogative!
Yeah, well, we lost that argument in 1865; I’m pretty sure we won’t undo the New Deal until we hit the fiscal brick wall, if then … but, who knows, we just might muster enough sanity in whatever Great Reset eventually happens. Doubt it, though, that’s not the way it tends to work.
Agreed, Harold. I was only responding to your query about the Founders’ intent. But you are right; our reality bites.
I also agree with your fiscal-wall portent. That could be an extremely difficult time for all of us, but it may be our last hope and chance to reverse the damages to our Constitution wrought in the past 100 or so years. I hope to be ready for that potentiality.
I appreciate your comments, sir!
Respectfully, Arnie