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.
Please Mr. Justice Scalia, show us
where there is any authorization anywhere in the Constitution or the 2nd
Amendment to go changing the 2nd Amendment or putting restrictions
on it short of a Constitutional Convention.
“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.
Again I say, show us where exactly
these supposed legal precedents are located including these supposed locational
limitations, I SURE HAVENT SEEN THEM IN THE CONSTITUTION OR THE BILL OF RIGHTS.
Having read the founding documents
many times (I also carry a pocket sized copy of the constitution and the bill
of rights with me daily) it says no such thing about any of the imagined
restrictions you speak of, and I will tell you flat out, if it is not
authorized in the constitution any change made without a constitutional
convention is a usurpation and is not law nor is it worth the paper it is written
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.” Again, where in the Constitution is your authorization to make
changes which are not already authorized in the constitution, you might want to
take a closer look at the enumerated powers part of the Constitution.
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.
Now you are telling us the context
of 18th Century history is your authorization to change our
constitution? Just what law school teaches that?
In a wide-ranging interview, Scalia
also stuck by his criticism of Chief Justice John Roberts and the majority
opinion in the ruling that upheld the Affordable Care Act this summer.
“You don’t interpret a penalty to be a pig. It can’t be a pig,” said
Scalia, of the court’s decision to call the penalty for not obtaining health
insurance a tax. “There is no way to regard this penalty as a tax.”
Scalia, a septuagenarian, said he had
given no thought to retiring. “My wife doesn’t want me hanging around the
house,” he joked. But he did say he would try to time his retirement from
the court so that a justice of similar conservative sentiments would take his
place, presumably as the appointee of a Republican president. “Of course I
would not like to be replaced by somebody who sets out immediately to
undo” what he has spent decades trying to achieve, the justice said.
A black robe does not give you the
right to make up laws and restrictions from the bench, again let me say, If the
Constitution does not grant permission or authorization to do something, it is
not permissible and is not legal.
WAKE UP AMERICA!!!
PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL
ON YOUR LIST
REQUEST THAT THEY DO
THE SAME PLEASE