Scalia Suggests ‘Hand-Held Rocket Launchers’ Are Protected Under Second Amendment

[kpete]

Source: Think Progress

Scalia Suggests ‘Hand-Held Rocket Launchers’ Are Protected Under Second Amendment
By Zack Ford on Jul 29, 2012 at 10:26 am

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Justice Antonin Scalia reiterated just how extremely his Constitutional originalism can be applied. Referring to the recent shooting in Aurora, CO, host Chris Wallace asked the Supreme Court Justice about gun control, and whether the Second Amendment allows for any limitations to gun rights. Scalia admitted there could be, such as “frighting” (carrying a big ax just to scare people), but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind. According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o “bear arms”:

WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.

Read more: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/07/29/602491/scalia-rocket-launcher/

[xtraxritical]

1. This douche will protect a "right" to kill but not a six year old girls right to live.

[PavePusher]

8. Please cite to this "'right' to kill".

Hate Scalia all you want, but you don't need hysterical invention to do so.

[Occulus]

17. It's inherent to the Second Amendment

You can't- literally can not- have a right to bear arms without the right to kill, under certain circumstances.

Try to dodge it all you like, but the one follows the other, necessarily.

[sarisataka]

26. Only self defense

is when you are justifiably allowed to kill

Do you believe that should not be allowed?

[nanabugg]

44. When will anyone ever pay attention to "well regulated" in the 2nd amendment?

[sarisataka]

51. I do believe in well regulated

I maintain my arms and keep them in working order
I have training in the proper use of my arms
I keep myself fit enough to provide useful service if called upon

I am well regulated according to both the letter and spirit of the 2A


Now will you answer my question:

Do you believe that killing in self defense should not be allowed?

[baldguy]

2. Can I have a nuke, then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_%28nuclear_device%29

[dipsydoodle]

3. At this rate you shouldn 't have to wait too long.

As an outsider I refuse to believe the right to bear arms was ever intended to go this far.

[madrchsod]

16. no it was`t

people in the usa have a hard time understanding the 2nd amendment.

[shcrane71]

4. As long as it fits into a suitcase, Scalia would probably be OK with that. nt

[iamthebandfanman]

6. +1 n/t

[PavePusher]

11. No, you can't.

Not portable by one person.

But thanks for trying to sell fear and hysteria.

[kestrel91316]

19. I assume, then, that you fully support the right of Americans to

carry live grenades around with them anywhere they want, right? And switchblade knives and such??

[happyslug]

29. Even n 1792 you had restrictions as where you could do with weapons

The classic situation s the concept of Strict liability for gunpowder. if gunpowder goes off who ever owned the powder had to pay for what ever damage the powder exploding caused.

Another concept was (and is) is the rule that if you shoot a bullet you are responsible for what ever the bullet hits.

Thus to carry grenades excerpt in actual combat would violate the above concepts and lead to criminal action if not Civil liability even if a court finds it is legal to own grenades.

[PavePusher]

60. Well, did you build that Strawman yourself?

1. Carry, no. Grenades are far more dangerous than firearms in that they are much easier to mishandle and rather less stable. Own, no problem, so long as you have a safe space to store them, i.e. in a bunker, or a ground-level building sufficiently seperated from all other structures/inhabited areas.

2. Switchblades, no problem. I do, perfectly legal for me. It's a folding knife, what's the problem?

What else would you like to know?

[baldguy]

57. And there's no fear & hyseria sown by people who say 30,000 gun deaths each year is "a good start".

The laissez-faire attitude of gun worshipers toward to the massive death toll they promote with their extremist policies is both dangerous & disingenuous. More-so than any expressions of what they logical extension of what those policies would lead too are.

[PavePusher]

61. Cite your "quote", please, or retract it as an obvious lie. n/t

[baldguy]

64. Grow up & stop whining.

If you don't want to face ridicule & be stereotyped as an inconsiderate gun-worshiping yahoo, try offering actual solutions to reduce gun violence instead of trying to justify it or ignore it - or worse only offer "solutions" which will exasperate the situation. Otherwise the stereotype is true & the ridicule is legitimate.

But you can't do that, it's against your religion.

[bahrbearian]

14. Yes, It falls under the" Mutual Destruction Amendment, of the Constitution.

[sofa king]

47. Ha! That's just what I was going to say!

I believe a mushroom cloud of this size is easily covered under the Second Amendment:



How else am I to control the ground-hogs on mah prop ah tay?

[nykym]

78. Or you can carry it around with your luggage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suitcase_nuke

[BlueinOhio]

5. Oh yeah

My crazy neighbors and the couple idoits I worked with can now have their nukes.

[SoapBox]

7. Well...WTF?

First...what the hell is a Justice of the Supreme Court doing on a talk show? Worse yet,
something on the ClusterFuxs channel???

Why is it that these crazy gun types, never mention the "militia" part of the amendment?

[NV Whino]

9. Does this mean I can stand my ground in front of the Supreme Court building?

[BlueinOhio]

10. You have got to be kidding

A previous article on the rawstory was women dont have the right to birth control but men can get Viagra. Now on topic the scariest line was "his principle of originalism" does this mean he can make the founding fathers say whatever he wants. They are just hand puppets for Scalia. They created the constitution so it could grow and mature with the country not to become a noose around it's neck. Anyway to remove him on insanity grounds?

[Zorro]

12. I caught a bit of the show this AM

and my take on his response is a bit different than what the headline indicates.

Listening to him gave me the sense that he might consider restricting hand-held rocket launchers, which was more than I expected to hear.

[McCamy Taylor]

13. So a hand held tactical nuke is ok? Where can I get one?

[-..__...]

22. Here...

protective suits are available at additional cost...

[Gman]

15. No wonder we're in trouble

We have a SC Justice that thinks cases "have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind.". We are so screwed.

[AlbertCat]

18. Stuff and nonsense!

Sticking with an 18th century interp in the 21st century makes sense? I. Don't. Think. So.

And there's no "hand held" in the Constitution anyway. A mule or an ox can "bear" something and not hold it in his hands...

And "arms" in the 18th century means a flint lock.


Scalia is disingenuous beyond belief. He's simply absurd. Time to retire him.

In the 18th century the average man lived til his 60's.... so perhaps we should honor the 18th century meaning of having a job for "life" and put down Supreme Court judges at 65.

[99th_Monkey]

43. That's what keeps blowing my mind ....

Is just how extreme the armaments industry has taken weaponry that is
100 X as deadly as what the Framers had in mind when writing 2nd Amendment.

I have a clue they didn't have "enhanced AR-15s in mind, to be carried around and
used willy nilly at will:

&feature=related

[Thor_MN]

67. If it suited his purposes, he would cite that a modern semi automatic rifle has the equivalent

firepower of an 18th century cannon. Conservatives are so accepting of hypocrisy that he can make up what ever he wants to say, then justify it based on what ever the hell interpretation he chooses to make up.

[AlbertCat]

70. Scalia's a strict Constitutionalist...

.... who apparently knows nothing about life in the 18th century!

[Iliyah]

20. This man needs to be impeached

because he has lost all creditability with the sane. In his world like the rest of the GOP party, we would live in total constant fear of our neighbors especially if God forgive we disagree with them.

[bucolic_frolic]

21. Founding Father Originalists

could not have known about 100 round per minute weapons, or rocket
launchers, or nukes, or biological hand held weapons, or airplanes for
that matter.

The Founding Fathers would have known about defending the country from
foreign invaders and the resultant need for a minuteman militia, Hobbesian rights
of self-defense and the right to bear arms personally for self defense and even
the defense of property, and the right to defend one's community from attack,
native American or otherwise.

I doubt the Founding Fathers would have been enthusiastic about any
implied right to create mayhem, or with any right to carry hand held
weapons that could help create such mayhem.

It's becoming a sort of personal arms race. Not sure where the Founders
would come down on that one.

Not to worry. Antonin Knows.

[Speaker]

65. .

Founding Father Originalists could not have known about 100 round per minute weapons, or rocket launchers, or nukes, or biological hand held weapons, or airplanes for that matter.

That's why they gave us that handy-dandy amendment process. We can update the Constitution. But, you will never get the votes to ban guns. That's what upsets the gun banners.

[indypaul]

23. The second amendment also refers to

"A well regulated militia being necessary for a free State." When does
that requirement come into play? It seems apparent to me that
the right to keep and bear arms is conditioned by the first sentence of
the amendment.

[sarisataka]

28. The first clause

states the reasoning for the amendment. It does not create a prerequisite or place limit on the second.

[bongbong]

48. Wrong

You're wrong, and the SCOTUS also said you were wrong until the super reactionary ultra-conservative "We want to destroy America" repigs took over the court and wrote the travesty Heller.

[sarisataka]

50. Still waiting your cite

to any pre-Heller SCOTUS ruling to back up your claim.

I have previously provided my cite that this is the first SCOTUS ruling on the issue.

[bongbong]

56. I explained it already

Miller.

You think Heller is the first ruling on the 2nd Amendment? LOLLOLOLOLOLOLOLO

Here is a key phrase from Miller.

"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."

Now substitute "handgun" for "shotgun" (only gun-relgionists make such fine distinctions between death-machines that are more-or-less the same as shotguns & handguns), and you'll learn the truth.

I'm amazed at how little gun-relgionists know about gun laws.

Well, maybe not so amazed.

[sarisataka]

58. Does not answer the question

Of any other SCOTUS ruling that says 2A is not an individual right....

It ruled a short barrel shotgun is suitable for military use.

Now substitute "handgun" for "shotgun" (only gun-relgionists make such fine distinctions between death-machines that are more-or-less the same as shotguns & handguns), and you'll learn the truth.

Does the military use handguns?- in the last 100 years a non-comprehensive list-
M1911 .45 semi auto pistol
M1917 .45 revolver
.38 revolvers by various manufacturers
M9 9mm semi auto pistol
M11 9mm semi auto pistol
P226 9mm semi auto pistol
H&K USP .45 semi auto pistol

I congratulate you on regaining the crown of most uninformed statement

substitute "handgun" for "shotgun" (only gun-relgionists make such fine distinctions between death-machines that are more-or-less the same as shotguns & handguns)

much like saying only a car-religionist would make such a fine distinction between a Ferrari and a minivan

I award you your crown

[bongbong]

68. I knew it!

Yes, the EXACT differences between guns make A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE....

But only to gun-relgionists.

Not so much to SCOTUS justices or any other sane person.

[sarisataka]

71. Well we are finally getting some where

Yes, the EXACT differences between guns make A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENCE....

That was the point of Miller. They ruled on the usefulness of the gun.
The question of individual ownership was remanded, but never acted on.

You have your facts right, you are just coming to the wrong conclusion.

[bongbong]

73. Rational

> That was the point of Miller. They ruled on the usefulness of the gun.
> The question of individual ownership was remanded, but never acted on.

Wow, your opinions are as wrong as your "facts". Seems to be a theme among gun-relgionists. Their worship gets in the way of rationality.

[sarisataka]

86. Some interesting things about Miller

It was only argued by one side, the government.

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument

No opposing evidence, implying they might consider a different ruling if such would be presented.
Notice the ruling is about the shotgun's use to the militia. And the court was in error as such guns were used in WW1.

The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that 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.

and later

'In all the colonies, as in England, the militia system was based on the principle of the assize of arms. This implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to [307 U.S. 174, 180] cooperate in the work of defence.'

I added the emphasis.
Three points
-all males physically capable, not only those enrolled
-they were expected to supply their own arms
-the arms in common use at the time; then it would be muskets or Kentucky rifles. Earlier referenced laws mentioned sword and pikes, so it was expected arms would change over the years. Now the militia equivalent would be AR platform rifles and 9mm pistols

and lastly

The cause will be remanded for further proceedings

Full text of the decision is here http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=307&invol=174
You might find it enlightening if you want to question "facts"

[boppers]

30. Militia meant "old enough, and willing to, fight".

"Well regulated" meant "willing to muster and follow orders".

"State" is in there because we were originally a weak republic, the "State" was not your country, but the "State" you lived in... if one State attacked another, the idea was that if we were all armed, we'd likely seek more peaceful means (this was before the Civil War).

So, if you could show up at a town square, with a weapon, and could use it, in service to your State, you are part of it.

Keep in mind that many of the founders *opposed* having a standing military force, and opted, instead, for the idea of an army springing forth from an armed populace.

[bongbong]

49. wrong

> "Well regulated" meant "willing to muster and follow orders".

Nope, it meant "trained like an army". See Federalist Paper #29

[X_Digger]

59. Please refer to previous conversations..

You never did actually quote a section of FP29 that says what you claim..

Lest anyone actually think you know what you're saying..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4290943&mesg_id=4291998

[bongbong]

69. He's back!

I already refuted all your objections about Federalist Paper #29. The strategy of the gun-religonists is to try to overwhelm the sane Liberals on DU into accepting their Precious (guns) as a Harmless Wonderful Thing. Among other things, they do this by repeating their "arguments" even when refuted. Kind of like putting fingers in one's ears and saying "LA LA LA I can't hear you".

> Lest anyone actually think you know what you're saying...

The trademark of the digger. Declarations of victory. So predictable.

Lest anyone actually think you know what you're saying...

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/07/1052523/-The-Second-Amendment-Myth



You gun-relgionists are unhinged, I think. Your attempts to make the DU community look at guns as warm, fuzzy, & harmless is insane.

[X_Digger]

72. Feel free to quote a post of yours, then.

Until then?

*crickets*

[bongbong]

74. Victory is MINE, saith Digger

> *crickets*

I think THIS particular Victory Declaration must've taken you less than 10 seconds to type.

A NEW RECORD!

[X_Digger]

76. Lol, I'm waiting for you to post your *cough* cogent reply

that says that FP29 specifies a collective right.

Do try and read for comprehension, yes?

[bongbong]

81. Why

I know the drill. You poo-poo anything a sane Liberal posts about gun control, then declare "VICTORY!"

You've only followed that pattern about 5000 times, so I don't expect it to change any time soon.

[X_Digger]

82. If you can't even make your case, why should anyone believe what you assert? n/t

[bongbong]

84. I made my case

You can read it on other threads.

[X_Digger]

85. Yet you haven't addressed the substantive replies.

Feel free to address them..

As far as I can tell from the replies in the DU2 thread I linked above, your responses boil down to "nya nya nya, I don't have to prove anything."

You couldn't even point to a section of FP29 that supported your assertion.

If you have a better example of your 'other threads', please present it.

[boppers]

88. Which meant mustering and marching.

The training of the 16th century was not complex.

[petronius]

32. Funnily enough, the militia aspect is probably the strongest bit of 2A in favor

of the rocket launcher being protected, since that's an example of the type of weaponry that would be a great use to a modern militia or military force...

[Speaker]

66. .

The second amendment also refers to "A well regulated militia being necessary for a free State." When does that requirement come into play? It seems apparent to me that the right to keep and bear arms is conditioned by the first sentence of the amendment.

The first amendment protects my rights to religion, press, speech, assembly, and to a redress of grievances. Five rights.

The second amendment protects my rights to gather together with my neighbors to form a militia, and to keep and bear arms without infringement. Two rights.

Quite simple.

[Ter]

90. It means you can form para-military militias

Regulated privately.

[elbloggoZY27]

24. Way Out of Touch

Hand held rocket launchers. You got to be kidding. This Justice is way out of touch especially right after the senseless Colorado catastrophe.

There is no question that the 2nd Amendment needs to be tweaked. In the 18th Century here in North America life was very different and possessing a gun was necessary for hunting for food and self protection.


Law and Order really was not organized.

[AlinPA]

25. Stinger missiles are now protected under the 2nd amendment?

[sarisataka]

27. Being overlooked is what he said in another interview...

Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the Supreme Court's most vocal and conservative justices, said on Sunday that the Second Amendment leaves room for U.S. legislatures to regulate guns, including menacing hand-held weapons.
"It will have to be decided in future cases," Scalia said on Fox News Sunday. But there were legal precedents from the days of the Founding Fathers that banned frightening weapons which a constitutional originalist like himself must recognize. There were also "locational limitations" on where weapons could be carried, the justice noted.

When asked if that kind of precedent would apply to assault weapons, or 100-round ammunition magazines like those used in the recent Colorado movie theater massacre, Scalia declined to speculate. "We'll see," he said. '"It will have to be decided."
As an originalist scholar, Scalia looks to the text of the Constitution—which confirms the right to bear arms—but also the context of 18th-century history. “They had some limitations on the nature of arms that could be borne," he told host Chris Wallace.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729

[slackmaster]

31. He's right, but they are regulated and taxed as Destructive Devices under the National Firearms Act

It's theoretically possible for an individual to buy one legally, but the licensing and approval process would be quite onerous.

[unblock]

33. once again, nothing he says makes any real sense.

he votes however he wants, then comes up with some cockamamie rationale to "explain" his vote.

first, he's just making it up that to "bear" arms has anything to do with being able to carry them. to "bear" includes to produce or to be equipped with. if i remove a tarp that was covering a tank i can say i am "bearing" the tank.

second, the right to "keep and bear arms" -- what is the relationship between "to keep" arms and to carry them?
even if you believe that to "bear" arms means to carry them, to "keep" arms has zero implication of being able to carry them.

third and on the other side, why is the second amendment immune from consideration of the rest of the constitution while, say, the first amendment is not? there are many restrictions on speech in the name of of parts of the constitution. but second amendment advocates typically dismiss other considerations such as ensuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare.

[former9thward]

34. Plenty of stuff to attack Scalia but not this.

I heard the interview and he suggested no such thing. SC justices are not allowed to publicly give their opinions on issues which have not come before the court but may in the future. Justice Ginsberg would have given the same vague answer. If you don't believe that then you have never heard a SC justice speak publicly.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. USSC justices are not governed by the judicial code of conduct,

And they decide for themselves if and when they should recuse themselves. Both Scalia and Thomas are now notorious for ignoring any semblance of impartiality and non-partisanship.

[former9thward]

37. Nice but not the subject matter of this thread or my post.

[Warren Stupidity]

35. 2nd absolutist, 1st, 4th, 5th: not so much.

Blithering hypocrite.

[Chef Eric]

38. How does one reconcile "originalism" with the 13th & 19th amendments?

Does Tony have a problem with the abolition of slavery? Or giving women the right to vote?

I've never understood the idea that some of the founding fathers' beliefs about "rights" are sacred, but others are not.

[SnakeEyes]

55. your post makes no sense.

not sure what you're trying to say.

[Chef Eric]

63. I'll try again.

Apparently, Tony Scalia believes that our right to bear arms must never be infringed upon because the founding fathers wanted us to have the right to bear arms. But did the founding fathers want to give freedom to the slaves? Did the founding fathers want to give women the right to vote?

My point is that basing our laws on what the founding fathers "wanted" doesn't make sense.

[onehandle]

39. I agree. That's why their broken decision on the 2nd Amendment is fucking insane and wrong.

Last edited Sun Jul 29, 2012, 10:18 PM - Edit history (1)

I'll take my briefcase nuke now.

[Red Mountain]

40. LOL.....in NC

We aren't trustworthy enough to purchase bottle rockets or firecrackers.

I have a hard time seeing where Scalia is coming from.

[Red Mountain]

41. In a textual sense.....

I think progressives have more at stake than wing nuts......but is there a list of what Republicans stand to lose from a strict textualist approach?

[RedStateLiberal]

42. Just found this political cartoon:

[Third Doctor]

45. They

did not have these in mind when the second amendment was written over two centuries ago. They are adhering to the letter of the law more than the spirit to suit there own far right beliefs.

[Turbineguy]

46. He's right of course.

Greater firepower, more efficient to commit mass murder. Why should health insurance companies do all the heavy lifting?

[hack89]

52. You would think that gun control advocates would be happy.

in that interview he specifically says that legislatures can regulate firearms.

[sakabatou]

53. Scalia: Rocket launchers are ok. Birth control? ABSOLUTELY NOT! (see link)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=180183

[muntrv]

54. Fine, Antonin! Does the First Amendment cover my right to

name my rocket launcher Scalia Killer?

[Kablooie]

62. What about a remote control that triggers a cannon? That's hand held too.

Or a remote that triggers an atomic bomb?
Theoretically possible and possibly constitutional under his logic.

Using his logic it would be permissible to scream "FIRE" in a crowded theater.
Apparently consequences have no bearing on whether something is constitutional or not in his mind.

[bobthedrummer]

75. So are my chemical and biological devices, get some! n/t

[get the red out]

77. Maybe he thinks that's him after a little blue pill

Could be confused

[yurbud]

79. What do you do when a Supreme Court justice starts make televangelists look like

thoughtful scholars?

[yurbud]

80. the difference between Scalia and the average red neck conservative:

his robe isn't white.

[may3rd]

83. I wonder what the Syrians think about that rocket launcher analogy

of course,
they're to busy dodging jets and helicopters to get much web news feed now a days. Of course, freedom of the press was greatly restricted under Assad iron fisted fire wall anyway.

Syrian civil war isn't exactly like shooting at red coats from behind stone walls and trees but the times
they are a changin'.

[Auntie Bush]

87. Is this man crazy?...or what?

[Bolo Boffin]

89. I'm getting my suitcase nuke in Louis Vuitton.

Fashion YES.

[NuttyFluffers]

91. does this apply to (holy or not) grenades? is this a backdoor loophole to fireworks bans?

can i bear a king cobra in a pneumatic plunger? how about a blowgun and neurotoxin?