Monday, July 30, 2012


So, I can carry around a hand held axe on the street to intimidate people at least if I am following Justice Antontin Scalia's train of logic on the Second Amendment because it was just a misdemeanor when the constitution was written? Thanks for clarifying that for  me, Justice Scalia (I was always a little wary of carrying a hand held axe on the street when I lived in the East Village in NYC) . I think that is what Scalia incoherently said, at least as he explained it to the talking heads yesterday:

"We'll see," Scalia replied. "Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be carried. It's to 'keep and bear' so it doesn't apply to cannons."

"But I suppose there are handheld rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to -- it's will have to be decided," he added.

That's it? That's the criteria as to whether or not the right to keep and bear a weapon of any kind -- its portability?

Wow, or as I would say when I'm in that mood to blow shit up might say: Yeeeeeeeehaw!!!!

Scalia seems to be opening the door not just for legalizing fully automatic guns, but all kinds of weapons. I mean, hell, pipe bombs -- which, let's be honest, really aren't quite up there in the rocket-launcher category in terms of lethality -- are currently illegal as hell and tightly regulated by the ATF and various other federal agencies right now.

So, for that matter, are all various kinds of portable bombs, particularly those made with C-4. They pack quite a kick, too.

And I guess if we continue to follow the impeccable logic of District of Columbia v. Heller, as Scalia is doing here, then we'll soon loose the dogs on a whole range of weapons that are currently regulated -- because they certainly can be carried.

But hell, why stop there? Go all the way: Let's establish the right to keep and bear
a suitcase nuke, since obviously, it's a kind of arms and you can bear it, too.

In fact, I think every American ought to have a suitcase nuke for their personal use. That way if some nutcase comes into a theater and tries to blow everyone up with a suitcase nuke, the entire audience can set off their own nukes. I think I know where I can find some schematics on if I can just get the weapons grade nuclear material...well, krikey, man, we're in business!
Thanks, your honor. We owe you one.


microdot said...

I'd like to amend my post...with the observation that Scalia's semi coherent 18th century interpretive rationalized logic of the is the same ridiculous process he used to give us the nightmare of Citizens United....
You know, Corporations are people too....Maybe he could have been successful writing comedy, but, I'm not laughing.

Ol'Buzzard said...

How about a suitcase Nuke - I understand that can be hand carried?

Scalia is a nut case: this is the fallacy of lifetime appointment.
the Ol'Buzzard

Laci The Dog said...

I have to admit it is amusing watching him talk about this topic since the Heller-McDonald decisions make this pure gibberish.

The Second Amendment was implemented by the Militia Acts of 1792 and covered the arms of infantry, artillery, and cavalry. I think that an artillery piece is too large to be hand carried.

I should also add that there was no federal gun control act dating from the period of the founding.

The problem is that to come up with his explanation for the Second Amendment.

To justify the Collectivist interpretation (applies to militias only), one needs only go as far as the preamble where it says "provide for the common defence".

Further in, one finds the militia mentioned and the power of congress to arm the militia under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

As Patrick Henry pointed out in regard to this clause:

Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States--reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither--this power being exclusively given to Congress.

Thus, congress is not to infringe upon the arming of the milita organised by Article I, Section 8, Clause 16.

That is the simplest explanation of the Second Amendment to use the Ockham's Razor comment often used to object to the collectivist interpretation by the gun rights crowd.

I should also add that his interpretation neglects what Marbury v. Madison says about "It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect".

If he wished to presume that a clause of the Constitution is without effect, isn't his authority for "judicial review" also without effect since it is Marbury v. Madison which grants that power?

Heller-McDonald treads upon dangerous ground.

Especially since it has said that Judicial Precedent is without effect.