Justice Scalia: Guns Not Just for Crime

[Waitone]

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/2/26/164213.shtml?s=ic

Justice Scalia: Guns Not Just for Crime

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia fondly remembers carrying a rifle around New York City as a boy and says outdoorsmen should attack the idea that guns are only used for crimes.

An avid outdoorsmen who's hunted with Vice President Dick Cheney, Scalia spoke Saturday at the National Wild Turkey Federation's annual convention.

"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.

"I grew up at a time when people were not afraid of people with firearms," said Scalia, noting that as a youth in New York City he was part of a rifle team at the military school he attended.

"I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle," he said. "Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?"

Scalia was criticized in 2004 for hunting ducks with Cheney while the Supreme Court was considering a case involving Cheney's energy task force. This month, a lawyer hunting with Cheney in Texas was wounded when he stepped in the way as Cheney fired at a bird.

The nonprofit turkey federation is dedicated to conserving wild turkeys and preserving hunting traditions.

 

[Standing Wolf]

"I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle," he said. "Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?"

As long as it was of sufficient caliber, yes, I can imagine it. What I can't imagine is going anywhere in New York unarmed.

 

[progunner1957]

"The attitude of people associating guns with nothing but crime, that is what has to be changed," Scalia told the audience of about 2,000.

Amen to that!! Thank God we have someone like Scalia on the Supreme Court!!

 

[beerslurpy]

As apparently inconsistent as Scalia can be on some issues of legal principle, I suspect he will prove his worth to conservatism in the long run.

 

[Waitone]

I find it really interesting the within the last 6 months or so we have Scalia speaking positively publically about firearms.

One side of me says nothing in goverment happens by accident. The other side of me says Scalia has kept his mouth shut and the the fact that he feels free to speak says there is a real change on the court. I guess I'll believe it when Alex Kosinski takes his seat.

 

[beerslurpy]

I think that the 2nd amendment scholarship we have known about for years has made its way to the ears of the suprme court justices.

I know they read legal journals and they speak with non-scotus legal professionals all the time, so they couldnt have stayed complely ignorant of the scholarship that has been undertaken over the past 15-20 years on the subject. They probably noticed the OLC paper that ashcroft issued right before the election as well.

It wouldnt surprise me if the gun-owning justices (like alito) either congregate with other hunters or peruse online forums such as this one. I mean, you probably arent going to see a user called "Clarence Thomas," but they probably lurk here and there. If they dont, at least a few of their clerks must.

I heard a theory a while back that the reason the 2nd amendment hadnt come to the SCOTUS is that the justices didnt know how the others would go on the issue and were afraid of raising it and creating a sweeping and disruptive precedent that they didnt like.

My bets on a good originalist interpretation of the 2nd:
Thomas: pro, because he likes to drop subtle hints like the right to keep and bear arms being the "palladium of liberty"
Scalia: pro, because he sure makes some odd speeches if he is anti
Alito: pro because of Rybar and the fact that he shoots regularly
Roberts: not totally sure but I suspect pro based on his statements about the holdings of Miller during the confirmation hearings
Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy: completely unknown. They have penned or joined in dissents or decisions that are compatible with an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but nothing solid. As far as I know, none of them have expressed any view on the subject.

So we have 4 pro, 5 unknown.

 

[HighVelocity]

An avid outdoorsmen who's hunted with Vice President Dick Cheney

And lived to tell the tale!

 

[Waitone]

Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts. . . . . lurking????????

Grammar check. Spelling check. Logical reasoning check. Second thought, we are normal 'Muricans with a few imbedded brains.

Will they buy ammo for the First Annual THR/SCOTUS Full Auto Turkey Shoot and Sacred Cow Barbeque?

 

[beerslurpy]

Are you disagreeing or agreeing with me?

There is nothing to stop any of the justices or their clerks from perusing the internet. But lets say they only keep legal-related company and avoid the internet. Those people are definitely active on the internet. Sure, David Kopel doesnt come by here to regularly post, but he posts semi-regularly on Volokh and probably a few other places as well. More importantly, he gets published regualrly and people invite him to speak and do interviews. Having eloquent spokespeople to bridge the gap between us and the rest of society is an important step.

The good news is that none of the current scholarship really makes a compelling case for the pro-control or collective-right side. At best they can say "well the 2nd amendment is compatible with some controls" which is kind of like getting the south to admit "i guess blacks really do have some rights now that they are no longer slaves." Once we have succeeded in moving the boundary, arguing over exactly where to put it is not going to significantly disadvantage us. The trick is getting there. Right now it only looks like a matter of time.

 

[Waitone]

I would love to think a justice entered our discussion group if for no other reason than to get a reality check. They don't have to participate unless they have a killer barbeque sauce. Just listening to average, stone-cold normal people has to be good. One of the problems with lifetime appointments is insulation from reality unless actives steps are taken to get out and circulate. And I do not think the party circuit in DC is getting out. Getting out is doing it like Thomas. Every summer he cranks up the ol' RV and tours 'Murica.

 

[Camp David]

Justice Scalia: Guns Not Just for Crime---Excellent article... I particularly liked this part:

"I used to travel on the subway from Queens to Manhattan with a rifle," he said. "Could you imagine doing that today in New York City?"

I am so glad that Justice Scalia is on Supreme Court!

 

[alan]

Sort of amazing, but the above mentioned, short piece appeared in the ANTI GUN Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

I like this alot. A whole lot. A pro-2a ruling would be fantastic for us. Glad to know Scalia is a shooter.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens, Kennedy: completely unknown. They have penned or joined in dissents or decisions that are compatible with an originalist interpretation of the 2nd amendment, but nothing solid. As far as I know, none of them have expressed any view on the subject.

So we have 4 pro, 5 unknown.

Here is Stevens dissent from U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995):

"In my judgement, Congress' power to regulate commerce in firearms includes the power to prohibit possession at any location because of their potentially harmful use; it necessarily follows that Congress may also prohibit their possession in particular markets."

He goes on to suggest there is a substantial handgun market among school-age children in his dissent. So I would feel pretty comfortable scratching Stevens from the unknown list and penning him in on the "anti" list. I am pretty sure you could find similar commentary from Ginsburg at a minimum and probably could find it for all of the justices you listed as unknown.

 

[beerslurpy]

Oh yeah duh, I should have looked at Lopez. Kennedy was the 5th pro vote on that right? I'm pretty sure it wasnt the other 4. I'll check. edit: Oh wow, dissents galore.

Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg are all pretty old, they grew up in the 20s, 30s and 40s so it is not surprise that they will have a view of government poisoned by the propaganda of the New Deal era. The upside is that their age makes them likely candidates for retirement in the next 2 years. I suspect at least one or two of them are waiting for either the 06 elections (to see if the dems regain the senate) or the 08 elections (to see if the dems regain the senate or presidency). If the republicans still have the current level of power in 09, you will definitely see vacancies, if not earlier.

 

[AZRickD]

I find it really interesting the within the last 6 months or so we have Scalia speaking positively publically about firearms.

That was the first thing that crossed my mind... followed by considerations of Justice Steven's age and Justice Ginsburg's health.

Why do I think Ruth is a closet gunnie?

Naaah.

Rick

 

[MrTuffPaws]

The problem with this is that he is fond of "outdoorsmen". That right there should make any pro-gun person leery of him.

Remember, the AWB did little to hurt outdoorsmen, but violated the rest of us gun owner’s rights. Strangely enough I don't remember the 2nd mentioning hunting anywhere.

 

[RealGun]

Here is Stevens dissent from U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995):

"In my judgement, Congress' power to regulate commerce in firearms includes the power to prohibit possession at any location because of their potentially harmful use; it necessarily follows that Congress may also prohibit their possession in particular markets."

This is the same old puzzle about [what does "shall not be infringed" really mean?]. We all think we understand English. There should be a primary requirement to argue "compelling state interest" before any exception is considered. Using "interstate commerce" as some license to do whatever the federal goverment wishes is just not logical, albeit very convenient for achieving the desired result. Stevens cites a classic case of a "living Constitution", choosing to indulge in activist rulings as an imperial legislator. To be correct, the Court should make the country live with the 2A and all its implications or change it by act of Congress and ratification by the States. It is not the Supreme Court's job to make a mockery of the literal meaning of the Constitution. They are sworn to do otherwise.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

The problem with this is that he is fond of "outdoorsmen". That right there should make any pro-gun person leery of him.

The glass is half full. It would be nice if we could get Jeff Cooper on the court but I seriously doubt it will ever happen.