Quote of the day–Justice Antonin Scalia

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54-55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Justice Antonin Scalia
June 26, 2008
District of Columbia, et al., petitioners v. Dick Anthony Heller, No. 07-290, Page 64
[It’s not the role of our legislators or the executive branch either. The only legal way for them to try is through a constitutional amendment and even that has some serious problems because the formation of the union was dependent upon those first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights.–Joe]


8 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Justice Antonin Scalia

  1. I sometimes find a quote I want to use on a particular day and post date the blog post. In this case I wanted to make the post on the second anniversary of the Heller decision.

    It’s a bug in the software that this post is accessable before the date comes around.

  2. It would be an interesting thing, indeed, to see what would happen to this country if a significant movement to repeal the Second Amendment was actually able to get off the ground… Particularly, I would be curious how individual states would react, as well as the populace as a whole…

    But, then again, I used to think it might be interesting to observe the downfall of a civilization/culture/nation. Had I been a little quicker, I would have specified, “observe from afar“….

  3. I’m considered an “anti” around here and I don’t believe there is any way that guns will ever be totally outlawed.

    It doesn’t make sense to outlaw guns, even if you don’t believe in owning one yourself. I’ve driven across the USA more times than I can count and I can personally vouch for the fact that guns are necessary in a lot of places. I wonder how many people have driven from Barstow, California to Kingman, Arizona and have noticed the sign that says “98 miles to the next services.” Yeah, it’s 98 miles between gas stations. A handful of people live out there. It’s not the kind of area you want to have your car breakdown or anything else. I used to drive it on a regular basis in the pre-cell phone era.

    So, I think the idea of a total gun ban is totally ridiculous and it seems to be something the Right pushes as a boogieman. It’s never going to happen.

  4. There are bunches of quotes from prominent antis as well as microstamping as backdoor bans…of course they won’t try a total direct ban because that is political suicide…

    you think there’s a boogeyman now?

  5. I’m not commenting on the semantics used to deny the existence of de facto disarmament. Nor am I commenting on the possibility of actually disarming everyone. I’m not passing judgement on paranoid leftists, their bogeyman the armed citizen, who develops an instantaneous psychosis and starts killing people. I’m wasn’t even commenting on the fact that the term “gun ban” is misused, because the people enforcing the bans always remain armed.

    I’m simply saying that the wording of the Constitution makes it pretty clear that a pre-existing right to armed defense exists, and therefore, regardless of what wording is changed, any attempts to disarm–totally, conditionally or by disrupting markets and supplies–is completely illegal under every circumstance except the one where a jury box full of regular old citizens gives a verdict that results in incarceration.

  6. “I can personally vouch for the fact that guns are necessary in a lot of places.”
    ubu; The individual citizen doesn’t need someone else deciding when or where their rights may be exercised. That being said, you’d be far safer breaking down in rural Idaho, for example, where most people are armed, than in a lot of cities where guns are heavily restricted. Most people out here would automatically stop and help you, without giving it a moment’s thought, regardless of your race, color, sex or creed. The only thing they’ll see is someone who needs help, and we don’t need a self-important shithead/dysfunctional retard in DC, or in the state capital, or at City Hall, to tell us how to behave.

Comments are closed.