Sunday, July 29, 2012

Scalia: guns can be regulated

Well, duh. NFA anyone? The Hughes amendment is an outright ban to non 'only ones.' Random states regulate guns based on what worry warts and statists with a guilty conscience feel are dangerous. And the Supreme court talked sideways on the NFA back in the thirties too. I don't have the link to the case where the court said short barrel shotguns have no military purpose (nitwits hadn't randomly pulled the 'sporting' card yet) even though men on the court had served in WWI and knew how shorty shotguns are used.

1 comment:

JD said...

I'm not really understanding why there is so much outcry on this now when this was also discussed in DC vs. Heller.

Everyone was soooooo happy about the ruling, but apparently not very many really read it.

"The opinion the Court announces today fails to identify any new evidence supporting the view that the Amendment was intended to limit the power of Congress to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

"Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms solong as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations. Today judicial craftsmenhave confidently asserted that a policy choice that denies a “law-abiding, responsible citize[n]” the right to keep anduse weapons in the home for self-defense is “off the table.”"