Very interesting interview. Back in the day He stated that thier were limitations about The nature of arms that could be borne, such as some axe head of some kind that was a misdemeanor if carried. the 2nd amendment does not apply to arms that connot be carried such as cannons.Missle launchers that could take down an airplane can be carried... that will have to be decided.

 

With SCJ Scalia discussing this. I wouldnt doubt a 5-4 decision of some kind will be coming down the pike on gun control legislation thats for sure.

 

6:59 SCJ Scalia discusses the 2nd amendment.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

Thank God we have attorneys that can walk on water, too.

 

 

.

I think that everyone agrees that there are boundaries when it comes to any inalienable or ratified/legal individual rights. It all comes down to where those boundary lines are to be drawn.

 

The anti's love to use the missile launcher/nuclear bomb argument as "being arms, so you say they should be for sale to the public" yada yada. Safe to say that most people, even pro-2A rights people, agree that guided missiles and nuclear weapons are clearly outside the 2A boundary limits.

 

What needs to be hashed out are those boundary lines. The problem is both sides refuse to give up any ground, as the basis for the anti's movement now are their ideas of "reasonable and common sense" regulations. They know they can't ban guns all together due to 2A, but they can try to regulate them and their ownership into the ground. This is there way of trying to push the boundary back so far that the only guns they want people to be able to get are single shot .22's "smart guns" which read your fingerprint in order to use,... wrapped up with so much regulation it would take years to get a license to own one, you could only keep 50 rounds of serialized ammo at home, and you can only leave your house once a month to take it to the range in a triple locked case. That is "reasonable and common sense" for many anti's when it comes to how they see a compromise. I lump Bloomberg and Lautenmommy here.

 

Many of us gun owners (myself included) see "reasonable and common sense" to be NFA Title 2 guns and ownership/possession/CCW/carry provided via "shall issue" permits which a person can get once they are found to be free of any past violent convictions, is not a felon, is not a past violent felon, etc. "Gun laws" should primarily focus on harsh punishment for those people who misuse guns to commit crimes, and not designed to punish law abiding folks.

 

We have to work to stop these "whittiling away at our rights" laws like magazine size restrictions (who is right to say 1 round or 100 is the limit?), banning guns because of their style/cosmetics, ambiguous and confusing possession and transport laws (NJ), and "shall not issue" provisions in laws for carry permits.

+1 for Dan. The problem is that there can be no compromise, because, just as in taxing and spending its never enough, there would NEVER be enough "common sense" gun legislation.

I think that everyone agrees that there are boundaries when it comes to any inalienable or ratified/legal individual rights. It all comes down to where those boundary lines are to be drawn.

 

The lines need to be drawn at abuse and where your rights begin to infringe on my rights. This is why we have freedom of speech but laws against slander/libel.

 

The anti's love to use the missile launcher/nuclear bomb argument as "being arms, so you say they should be for sale to the public" yada yada. Safe to say that most people, even pro-2A rights people, agree that guided missiles and nuclear weapons are clearly outside the 2A boundary limits.

 

Why would this be "clearly outside the 2A boundary"? The most powerful weapons of the colonial era were cannons and anyone could own them, as long as you could afford them. Even today, if you had a couple hundred million dollars and could afford a F-35, I say that should be OK. If the military can have them, so should we. Most people won't be able to afford them, but that isn't a reason to restrict them.

 

Many of us gun owners (myself included) see "reasonable and common sense" to be NFA Title 2 guns and ownership/possession/CCW/carry provided via "shall issue" permits which a person can get once they are found to be free of any past violent convictions, is not a felon, is not a past violent felon, etc.

 

Why not NFA items? Because they were restricted before you were born? Full auto was the next advancement in technology for firearms. The founders' writings were clear that they intended for us to have the same weapons as the military for self and common defense. Full auto definitely falls into that category. This isn't to say that we will ever see a repeal of the 1934 NFA and maybe that's acceptable to us, but that would simply be due to the fact that not many of us could afford to feed a full auto gun and therefore it won't apply to us. But I can see suppressors, SBRs and SBSs being taken off the NFA restricted list at some point.

 

And shall issue permits? If it requires a permit, it's not a right, it's a privilege with a tax. Four states do not require any type of a background check or permit for carry and none of them have a higher than average crime or accident rate involving firearms outside the home. This is not to say that I would not accept a shall issue permit system in NJ, but it is to say that shall issue should not be the endgame. Permitless carry should be the goal across the country, but we have to eat this elephant one bite at a time. I also believe that convicted felons should be able to get their gun rights back, or if they are too violent, they belong behind bars. Our system is based on rehabilitation and payment of debt for wrongdoing. Anyone who can't be trusted with a firearm can't be trusted to be unsupervised.

 

"Gun laws" should primarily focus on harsh punishment for those people who misuse guns to commit crimes, and not designed to punish law abiding folks.

 

I would argue that they should solely focus on punishment for misuse; no prior restrictions else it ceases to be a right.

Even today, if you had a couple hundred million dollars and could afford a F-35, I say that should be OK. If the military can have them, so should we. Most people won't be able to afford them, but that isn't a reason to restrict them.

 

Bloomberg could.. :wild:

The lines need to be drawn at abuse and where your rights begin to infringe on my rights. This is why we have freedom of speech but laws against slander/libel.

 

 

 

Why would this be "clearly outside the 2A boundary"? The most powerful weapons of the colonial era were cannons and anyone could own them, as long as you could afford them. Even today, if you had a couple hundred million dollars and could afford a F-35, I say that should be OK. If the military can have them, so should we. Most people won't be able to afford them, but that isn't a reason to restrict them.

 

 

 

Why not NFA items? Because they were restricted before you were born? Full auto was the next advancement in technology for firearms. The founders' writings were clear that they intended for us to have the same weapons as the military for self and common defense. Full auto definitely falls into that category. This isn't to say that we will ever see a repeal of the 1934 NFA and maybe that's acceptable to us, but that would simply be due to the fact that not many of us could afford to feed a full auto gun and therefore it won't apply to us. But I can see suppressors, SBRs and SBSs being taken off the NFA restricted list at some point.

 

And shall issue permits? If it requires a permit, it's not a right, it's a privilege with a tax. Four states do not require any type of a background check or permit for carry and none of them have a higher than average crime or accident rate involving firearms outside the home. This is not to say that I would not accept a shall issue permit system in NJ, but it is to say that shall issue should not be the endgame. Permitless carry should be the goal across the country, but we have to eat this elephant one bite at a time. I also believe that convicted felons should be able to get their gun rights back, or if they are too violent, they belong behind bars. Our system is based on rehabilitation and payment of debt for wrongdoing. Anyone who can't be trusted with a firearm can't be trusted to be unsupervised.

 

 

 

I would argue that they should solely focus on punishment for misuse; no prior restrictions else it ceases to be a right.

 

You read me wrong on NFA weapons, I feel we should be able to have them, including full auto, SBRs, suppressors, even larger cal guns like 25mm+ and cannons. I do not think nuclear weapons or guided surface to air missiles fall under 2A. Sure you can make an argument for them, realistically lets see how far that goes.

 

I'm also for a "shall issue" permit system for carrying. Some may not agree as yourself, and want the Vermont system where any non-prohibited person can carry. Personally for me, I'd rather have people vetted out as ahead of time whether they are non-prohibited, then just taking people's word for it. VT uses the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 definition of who would be prohibited.

After reading some responses here, maybe some of you didnt hear what SCJ Scalia said. He may be the most Conservative judge on the Court. He did state in his this interview their were limitations back in the day (so to speak) on 2A such as some kind of axe head which carried a sentence of a misdemeanor. He also stated that 2A says right to "bear" arms which he said means "carry" and included Missle Launchers. Ya cant carry a Tank or a Jet or a Ship, but you can carry nuclear, chemical and bilogical weapons.

Are Nuclear, chemical, biological, weapons considered firearms????

 

So if you have SCALIA talking about some sort of controls of some kind, Then the NRA's gonna need more money and members.

You read me wrong on NFA weapons, I feel we should be able to have them, including full auto, SBRs, suppressors, even larger cal guns like 25mm+ and cannons. I do not think nuclear

weapons or guided surface to air missiles fall under 2A. Sure you can make an argument for them, realistically lets see how far that goes.

 

No problem. And actually, I would make that argument for them to be protected. However, just like with full auto, I don't think that it's financially feasible to give a NY sewer rat's behind about getting nukes declared 2A protected.

 

I'm also for a "shall issue" permit system for carrying. Some may not agree as yourself, and want the Vermont system where any non-prohibited person can carry. Personally for me, I'd rather have people vetted out as ahead of time whether they are non-prohibited, then just taking people's word for it. VT uses the federal Gun Control Act of 1968 definition of who would be prohibited.

 

OK, so we're clear, you don't believe prohibited people should be carrying. I say prohibited people already are carrying (happens right here in NJ) and the permit system does not stop them. So is there a difference between a prohibited person carrying in a state where everyone can carry without a permit or a prohibited person carrying without a permit in a state that requires them?

 

After reading some responses here, maybe some of you didnt hear what SCJ Scalia said. He may be the most Conservative judge on the Court. He did state in his this interview their were limitations back in the day (so to speak) on 2A such as some kind of axe head which carried a sentence of a misdemeanor. He also stated that 2A says right to "bear" arms which he said means "carry" and included Missle Launchers. Ya cant carry a Tank or a Jet or a Ship, but you can carry nuclear, chemical and bilogical weapons.

Are Nuclear, chemical, biological, weapons considered firearms????

 

So if you have SCALIA talking about some sort of controls of some kind, Then the NRA's gonna need more money and members.

 

I believe we heard what he said correctly, that the court will have to decide the limits. He gave no indication of what those limits should be. Seems to be much ado about nothing, if you ask me. Although, the fact that he mentioned carry specifically, tells me that he's just chomping at the bit to smack down all those lower court judges who have said that Heller only applies in your home.

 

 

 

OK, so we're clear, you don't believe prohibited people should be carrying. I say prohibited people already are carrying (happens right here in NJ) and the permit system does not stop them. So is there a difference between a prohibited person carrying in a state where everyone can carry without a permit or a prohibited person carrying without a permit in a state that requires them?

 

 

For one, a convicted violent felon carrying a gun stopped for speeding would be arrested instead of given a ticket and on his merry way. The whole pro 2A argument is predicated on criminals not following the laws, but that doesn't mean there should not be any punishment for ignoring them.

For one, a convicted violent felon carrying a gun stopped for speeding would be arrested instead of given a ticket and on his merry way. The whole pro 2A argument is predicated on criminals not following the laws, but that doesn't mean there should not be any punishment for ignoring them.

 

How do you figure that?

 

 

How do you figure that?

 

Because he would be a prohibited person and having a firearm would be against the law.

Because he would be a prohibited person and having a firearm would be against the law.

 

That doesn't change in states that have constitutional carry. A prohibited person is a prohibited person and it is illegal for them to even touch a firearm.

 

 

That doesn't change in states that have constitutional carry. A prohibited person is a prohibited person and it is illegal for them to even touch a firearm.

 

I was under the impression you supported prohibited persons from having guns.

I was under the impression you supported prohibited persons from having guns.

 

OK, now I see where our disconnect is. I was debating Dan about the need for carry permits, which is where you jumped in and quoted me.

 

I support reinstating rights for felons who have served their time, but it's certainly not the highest thing on my wish list right now.

OK, so we're clear, you don't believe prohibited people should be carrying. I say prohibited people already are carrying (happens right here in NJ) and the permit system does not stop them. So is there a difference between a prohibited person carrying in a state where everyone can carry without a permit or a prohibited person carrying without a permit in a state that requires them?

 

Correct, I do not believe prohibited people should be carrying. Instead of LE running a background check to determine if a person is prohibited or not on anyone they come in contact during their normal course of business, it would be easier if all that was taken care of ahead of time, and you just have to show your CCW ID.

 

For instance, LE gets called in for an altercation between two people. Lets say not violent, but enough to get LE involved. LEOs takes both into custody and perform a terry search. They find a concealed HG on one of the guys. Without a CCW ID system, how will LE know if the person is prohibited or not? They would have to detain them while they processed their identity by whatever means, run a NICS check, etc. All of this takes time. It would be very inconvenient if the person was indeed not prohibited after all of this. It would be easier to just show a valid CCW ID , which streamlines that whole process. This is why I am for "shall issue" carry permits. The state has to issue you your permit provided the investigation turns up that you are NOT a prohibited person.

OK, now I see where our disconnect is. I was debating Dan about the need for carry permits, which is where you jumped in and quoted me.

 

I support reinstating rights for felons who have served their time, but it's certainly not the highest thing on my wish list right now.

 

I also agree, that some kind of reinstatement of rights has to be in place. After-all, our criminal justice system is all about "reform". I do believe there are exceptions as anything. If the crimes committed in the past by the past felon were extremely violent in nature, or if they did use a gun during the commission of violent crimes, that may be enough to strip them of their rights for life.

Correct, I do not believe prohibited people should be carrying. Instead of LE running a background check to determine if a person is prohibited or not on anyone they come in contact during their normal course of business, it would be easier if all that was taken care of ahead of time, and you just have to show your CCW ID.

 

For instance, LE gets called in for an altercation between two people. Lets say not violent, but enough to get LE involved. LEOs takes both into custody and perform a terry search. They find a concealed HG on one of the guys. Without a CCW ID system, how will LE know if the person is prohibited or not? They would have to detain them while they processed their identity by whatever means, run a NICS check, etc. All of this takes time. It would be very inconvenient if the person was indeed not prohibited after all of this. It would be easier to just show a valid CCW ID , which streamlines that whole process. This is why I am for "shall issue" carry permits. The state has to issue you your permit provided the investigation turns up that you are NOT a prohibited person.

 

Don't get me wrong, I would accept a shall-issue system in NJ, but I don't favor it. Especially if the only justification is to make it easier on an LEO during the unlikely event of an encounter. Maybe an officer will correct me, but wouldn't they run that wants/warrants check anyway, even if you have a valid permit? Again, four states are already doing this and I'm not seeing any evidence they it's a problem for LEOs.

 

I also agree, that some kind of reinstatement of rights has to be in place. After-all, our criminal justice system is all about "reform". I do believe there are exceptions as anything. If the crimes committed in the past by the past felon were extremely violent in nature, or if they did use a gun during the commission of violent crimes, that may be enough to strip them of their rights for life.

 

I think if the crimes they committed in the past are so heinous that they can't be trusted with a firearm, then I don't believe they should be walking free among us.