Gun Owners Of America Chief: Scalia Wrong On Second Amendment

[DonViejo]

Source: TPM



PEMA LEVY 9:37 AM EST, SUNDAY JANUARY 13, 2013

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, said Sunday that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was wrong to assume that the government had the right to place limits on the Second Amendment. "He was not speaking from a constitutional perspective," Pratt said.

"The amendment does provide it's own degree of scrutiny: It says, 'shall not be infringed,'" Pratt said on "Fox News Sunday" after host Chris Wallace read a quote from a 2008 case in which Scalia wrote that the Second Amendment was not "unlimited."

"And we know that at least one justice, Mr. Thomas, takes that point of view. This is not something where the government is supposed to be free to tell we the people, the government's boss, how much -- how far we can go with the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is there to constrain the government."

-30-

Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gun-owners-of-america-chief-scalia-wrong-on

[zbdent]

1. Well, Mr. Pratt ... if you're going to get technical about how the constitution is written ...

then whaddaya say about "Well-regulated militia"???

[duhneece]

5. 'Regulated' was always a part of the second amendment

So who did the writers of the Constitution think should and could monitor/do/provide the regulating if not the government?

[appal_jack]

21. Regardless, 'regulated' applies to the militia, not the arms.

In the 2nd Amendment, the word 'regulated' applies to the militia, not the arms. While I may not go quite as far as Mr. Pratt, I find his commitment to upholding this particular Constitutional liberty refreshing.

And before anyone goes and calls me a rw troll or one-issue gun nut; I feel that we Americans should be similarly steadfast in standing up for the rights to speech, privacy, habeus corpus, equal protection, etc.

-app

[B-ONE Lancer]

30. HYPOCRITES

SO, HERE IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WHEN TRYING TO HAVE IT BOTH WAYS
THE FACT IS THAT WHEN SOMEONE IS MURDERED BY AND FOR, WITH A GUN THAT EQUATES TO FREEDOM, YOUR ILK ARE WRONG, THAT IS NOT FREEDOM AND OVER 12,000 PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY IF THEY COULD TALK WOULD ASK YOU--REALLY.
WELL YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
MAYBE YOU CAN ASK ALL MY GRADE SCHOOL FRIENDS, FOR THAT MATTER MY GRADE SCHOOL PRINCIPLE WHEN HE WAS KILLED 50 YEARS AGO--BY A GUN AND THREE OTHER PEOPLE WERE WOUNDED WHAT THEY THINK OR THE IMPRESSION IT LEFT ON OUR/MY LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. DID YOU THINK THAT PART OUT?
NO ONE HAS THE GOD DAMN RIGHT TO INVADE MY FREEDOM OF "LIFE" LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, OR DID SOMEONE FORGET THAT PART OF THE CONSTITUTION.
AND HAVING A GUN DOESN'T MEAN WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO GIVE ME THE RIGHTS OF THE CONSTITUTION TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PUSRUIT OF HAPPINESS.
NO ONE HAS THE RIGHT TO COMPARE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO MY/OUR LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PUSRUIT OF HAPPINESS--NO ONE ON THIS PLANET ARE A GOD OR FOR THAT MATTER NEITHER IS THE FUCKING 'GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA' AND THERE PARANOID DELSUION OF GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER, AND THE 'NRA' AND THAT FUCKED UP CREW WITH THE GUN MANUFACTURES, THEY SURE DO THINK THEY ARE A GOD --NO, THEY ARE NOT A GOD, ITS ALL IN THE NAME OF GREED, FEAR, INEQUALITY THE LIST GOES ON AND ON, AND THEY NEED TO CHALLENGED.
JUST MAYBE THE MIS-INFORMED ILK SHOULD READ A BOOK CALLED THE "YEAR OF THE HANGMAN" BY GLEN F. WILLIAMS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IT WAS TO BE PERSON IN THE "MILITIA, THE STANDING ARMY FIGHTING AGAINST THE TORIES AND THE FUCKING KING AND THE CORPORATIONS OF ENGLAND AND BEYOND, AND THE FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES THAT SIDED WITH THE KING AND HOW THEY WERE SNOOKERED IN DECEIT AND DECEPTION OF GREED, AND HOW IT REALLY EQUATES TO WHEN THE CONSTITUTION WAS WRITTEN BY JEFFERSON, AND WHAT IT REALLY MEANS/SAYS WHEN IT SAYS "MILITIA", THEN ALL OF THESE SECOND AMENDMENT GUN OWNERS JUST MIGHT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONSITUTION REALLY MEANS.
AND THE ENDING OF THIS RANT YOU SAID THE WORDS --ARMS---REALLY, LETS TALK ABOUT ARMS:
DO YOU THINK HAVING 70 MILLION GUNS, 1800 NUCLEAR DEVICES CAPABLE OF KILLING OFF THIS PLANET, 2000+ AIRCRAFT, 12+ NUCLEAR CLASS SUBMARINES, 450,000+ SOLDIERS, UNTOLD SMALL ARMS, MILLIONS OF BULLETS AND BOMBS, 16 NUCLEAR CLASS AIRCRAFT CARRIERS, SHOULD I GO ON?
DO YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE TIED TO THE SECOND AMENDMENT--YOU THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH TO SHOW FOR THE VIOLENCE, OR DO YOU THINK WE NEED MORE--I DON'T THINK SO, THAT IS WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT MEANS --VIOLENCE AND MORE KILLING--NOT PROTECTION--AND THE GUN IS USED FOR KILLING.
END OF RANT.

[rrneck]

47. Switch to sub light engines

and drop out of warp there hoss!

[surrealAmerican]

48. There's not much utility in posting something ...

... that is basically unreadable.


Welcome to DU, but try not to use the caps-lock when typing long blocks of text.

[raidert05]

53. Dear god...

there is so much to look at..it burns...

[klyon]

57. please stop shouting, it hurts my eyes and hurts your points

welcome to DU by the way

[duhneece]

40. Much of the discussion, now, IS about

regulating who can buy what kind of guns & ammo.

[JDPriestly]

60. If you care about speech rights, this might interest you:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022187343

[appal_jack]

64. Thanks JDP. Indeed important.

Good example highlighting the core of the broader issue: once Constitutional issues are misinterpreted toward meaninglessness, our rights go out the door. Elected officials' only legitimacy derives from their oath to protect & uphold the US Constitution. Holding them to that promise is our best guarantee of freedom & justice.

-app

[duhneece]

65. And I do, and it did...interest me.

Thanks.

[TheMadMonk]

62. All actual or potential militia members must be liscenced.

Rather simple really.

Once every no more than three years, and at any time on a judge's orders, a member of the militia submits to a fittness evaluation.

He's evaluated for what type of "rank" he qualifies for. From:

• child/can't be trusted to come closer than 15 degrees of target; to
  
• Kinesthetic superhero;

Oh and there's nothing in the text of the 2nd Ammendment which forbids the government OWNING ALL GUNS, and simply issuing them to militia members on the basis of their rank and requiring them to be taken home and stored properly, or kept in a designated location nearby.

[bloomington-lib]

6. I looked up that question the other day. To them, a "well-regulated" militia means

well organized and well supplied. They even think the scotus confirms this.

[Igel]

25. That's the way a lot of writers in the late 1700s used the term.

Silly, to think that a word doesn't always have to have had the meaning we give it at the present. We love self-centered anachronism.

To regulate at the time could mean to rule, but also to bring up to established norms. That's how it was used.

Webster's dictionary confirms this. Good that Webster got started early.

It's like "well tempered" and talking about "temperament." Now "tempered" is applied to steel and "temperament" to people. In the 1700s "tempered" was at least as likely to be how you tuned your musical instrument and "temperament" was your choice of fine tuning. Equal? Mean tone? Some other?

[humblebum]

50. In order to be "well regulated", militias need to have people who have guns.Who are militias?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

[cantbeserious]

2. Any Society Can Decide That It Will No Longer Support And Allow Gun Ownership

eom

[pipoman]

7. Just in this society it will require a constitutional amendment..

I wouldn't hold my breath..

[cantbeserious]

10. Defeatism Is Not An Endearing Quality

eom

[pipoman]

43. Nor is unrealistic expectations..

[cantbeserious]

44. Societies Change - DUI Laws - Smoking Laws - Civil Rights Laws - Etc., Etc. ...

eom

[pipoman]

49. I'm not saying it can't change,

only that many of the changes being called for would require a constitutional amendment to accomplish. Not impossible..not going to happen any time soon..thus I don't want Obama to take a hit because the expectations of many are constitutional impossibilities or extreme difficulties..

[cantbeserious]

63. This Is Not About Obama, This Is About Us And The Society We Live In

eom

[pipoman]

66. It will be about Obama

when his administration doesn't "close the gun show loophole" as virtually half the threads are calling for.

[duhneece]

39. More & more, I'm getting closer to supporting repealing the second amendment

We repealed the 18th Amendment with the 21st Amendment. I never thought I'd support a repeal of the second, but I'm getting closer.

[klyon]

58. true, since we now have a large standing army it has little purpose or meaning

[humblebum]

61. A government that maintains a large standing army was one of the reasons for having the

2nd Amendment.

"What country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Jefferson To William S. Smith Paris, Nov. 13, 1787

[Xipe Totec]

3. What's Pratt's position on the right to keep and wear explosive underwear on planes? nt

[SWTORFanatic]

4. When you're to the right on Scalia you know you're wacky

[brush]

8. Whoa!

Hadn't thought of that as a possibility. That's really wacky alright.

[kag]

37. That's what I took from this.

They really are eating their own, aren't they? Not fast enough for me, but still...

[aandegoons]

9. There are very few people right of Scalia.

If you are you are either a gun nut or a mass murderer. Not much difference between the two in my opinion.

[Warren Stupidity]

11. Which gets straight to the heart of the matter.

A literal interpretation of the 2a would apply only to those weapons required to equip a militia. That would be full auto assault weapons, surface to air missiles, RPGs, anti tank weapons, mortars, light machine guns, grenades and other standard infantry weaponry.

Not covered would be hunting rifles, handguns, and standard shotguns.

The literal interpretation is lunacy in a modern society. So we are left with re-interpreting the 2a as a limited right to keep and bear some weapons, the issue is which weapons, and under what regulations one may keep and bear them.

[pipoman]

51. Wow

I believe this is the first time I have been in agreement with you on this issue. I completely agree with this statement.

[Paladin]

12. The GOA Is The Group For Those Who Think The NRA Is Too Liberal. Really.

Anyone who thinks Scalia's Heller opinion wasn't enough of a gift to the gun militancy movement as written, isn't sane enough to be armed with anything more lethal than a Q-tip. Larry Pratt is yet another gift from a loving God to the gun control movement. DU Gun Enthusiasts: aren't you getting tired of shithooks like this guy, fronting for you in public?

[primavera]

16. I wonder about that, too

When the people on your side are barking mad, right-wing wackos like Tony Scalia and Wayne LaPierre and James Yeager and Alex Jones and so on and so on, how do you escape the conclusion that you're keeping dubious company? If gun nuts don't approve of the deranged ravings of these public figures championing their cause, why aren't they coming out and publicly stating that these psychos do not speak for them? Qui tacet consentire vidatur, after all.

[Paladin]

19. Nicely Put. (nt)

[groundloop]

13. We're relying on words written over 220 years ago

Meanings change, circumstances change. It seems that if we can't update our thinking about these documents we're doomed.

First off, of course, are the words about a well regulated militia. Obviously the intent was for the defense of our nation against Britain. Also, as many have pointed out, the arms used at the time this was written were muskets, which are a far cry from the vast array of weaponry available today.

Furthermore, and I haven't seen this discussed, our military at the time the Bill of Rights was written wasn't anywhere near the overpowering force that we have today. Can anyone in their right mind believe that the founding fathers would have worded the second amendment as they did had today's conditions prevailed then? Or have even included it in the Bill of Rights? We don't have a need anymore for ordinary citizens to grab a musket out of their closet to defend the country against invasion, we have a well trained military to do that for us.

[Igel]

29. Why have a single intent?

1. Look at legislation today. We speak of "legislative intent" but we know that different legislators have a different intent. Any intent that accounts for a large part of the aye vote is part of the intent, making "intent" a fuzzy notion.

Speaking of "the" intent immediately puts your mind in a straitjacket and cinches down the straps. "What was the 2nd Amendment intended to accomplish?" can be less restrictive.

The militia at the time was intended to fight against outside aggressors, British, French, or indigenous. They were intended to put down insurrections. Small portions could be called out to help hunt down dangerous animals or people. But this misses the forest for the tree. Or "trees," if we think there are multiple intents. The forest is this: The right inheres in "the people." It doesn't say that "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

There's the claim that "the" reason was to keep the south from being armed so that it could put down slave insurrections. Again, there's the narrow thinking there can only be one intent. And adding into it the idea that somehow "insurrection" wouldn't automatically include both grain farmers in the far west (i.e., Tennessee) as well as slaves.

I figure that all of this narrow thinking is a way to narrow the definition of the 2nd amendment. Then, if it can be shown that that particular definition is inappropriate or superseded the entire amendment must be, as well; or, at the very least, you can narrow it to just accommodate that particular definition. I've seen it applied to freedom of speech--it only really applies to political speech that the government might want to suppress. So it's okay to ban other kinds of speech for any reason. The opposing view is "absolutist" and "extreme." Silly wabbits and their twix.

2. It was intended to keep the US government at bay. All the other rights limit the federal government in some way--they may address past abuses imposed by Britain or abuses that the founders and writers saw elsewhere. This says the federal government can't infringe the right to keep and bear arms.

I view this as a special case of (1). If the federal government has encountered such resistance that it needs to mass an army to invade, then pretty much by definition it's an "outside aggressor" at that point. So, yeah, it could be construed to allow for a citizen uprising against the federal government. The Whiskey Rebellion sort of squashed that.

3. It was intended to preserve what was seen as an inherent, natural right. Is there a natural right to bear arms? Funny question. We have a natural right to speak, to worship, to do a lot of things. We apparently have a natural right to due process. A natural right to having the government treat us that way? That's silly. But this would just mean the government can't change the rules mid-game, that they can't decide on the spot what we need to do to defend ourselves in court and what our punishment would be. We have a right to know our environment and not have our expectations undermined. There are rules that nature follows and we can anticipate them; this is natural. So also with government. Banning ex post facto laws follows from this.

So what natural right is in the 2nd amendment, up there with things like speech and religion? How about safety? We have a right to protect ourselves, individually and collectively. The federal government will provide for the common defense, but that's really just the means that we individuals have chosen to defend ourselvse collectively. This takes time. Do we have a right to defend ourselves in the 3 weeks it takes for the federal government to get its act together and move troops in to an area? It's like asking if we have a right to provide for ourselves in natural disasters for the time between the disaster and when FEMA shows up. Of course.

4. The weapons at the time were largely muskets but that's because you couldn't buy a cheap musket upgrade kit. In 1792 the feds placed a large order for rifles. Rifles were fairly new during the Revolutionary War and had been becoming more common during the second half of the 18th century. However there were naval ships and cannons and bayonets and a variety of other things that could kill you.

When militias were required to self-arm or the states armed them, they gave them personal weapons, not cannons or ships. Few people would be able to easily take a cannon 20 miles to a battle (although given some of the trucks on the road, let's not rule it out). Naval ships, however, are a different story. If somebody had a Patriot missile battery, it wouldn't do them much good. Stinger missiles are the same. Expensive white elephants. By the time you might need them to defend your home the'd be ancient tech and their components would probably have failed. It might be a restriction, but it would be a seldom-applied restriction.

Of greater interest are things like assault rifles. They're cheap enough to be bought, small enough to be carried and used, but still military weapons. Given that semi-automatics are allowed and those most into gun control are always claiming that they're trivially different from assault rifles, the point's moot. If they're trivially different, making them legally available would create at best a trivially greater hardship than the semis already extant.

[formercia]

14. The National Guard is the "well regulated Militia."

These other crazies are just wannabes.

[former9thward]

35. The National Guard did not exist in the 1700s.

It did not begin to be created until the late 1800s a hundred years after the Constitution was written.

[formercia]

41. I'm talking about Today.

There were Colonial Militias. Without them, the American Revolution probably would have failed due to lack of weapons and training. They were more like the National Guard than not.

[A Simple Game]

15. Mr. Pratt, if the 2nd Amendment is there to constrain the government,

why does it say well regulated militia instead of well regulated government?

I do agree that the 2nd Amendment is there to constrain, but disagree on who the constrainer and constrainee should be.

It sounds like Mr. Pratt would like us to be able to have biological and nuclear weapons too.

Personally, I think we should have a militia, and to show our appreciation we would keep their arms nice and safe in armories. To show our sincerity we would even let them trade in their semi-automatic weapons for fully automatic.

[bowens43]

17. The Constitution REQUIRES regulation.

I am so tired of the gun nuts and their supporters distorting the 2nd amendment. There is NO constitutionally protected right for an individual to own firearms. That is clear in the 2nd amendment.

Pratt you dumb ass why leave out the part about the WELL REGULATED MILITIA?

the gun nuts are truly pathetic....

[Paladin]

20. Pratt Didn't Have To Concern Himself With A "Well Regulated Militia"....

...because Antonin Scalia essentially removed the militia phrase from consideration or importance in his Heller opinion, one of many gigantic favors he did the gun militancy movement with that infamous ruling. The irony of Larry Pratt now criticizing Scalia is absolutely astounding.....

[brett_jv]

23. Actually, it is paradoxical ...

99% of the time people use the word 'irony' or 'ironic', the word they're actually looking for is 'paradoxical'. Irony is different from paradox ...

Not be a grammar nazi or anything, but this particular word misuse is a pet peeve of mine ... I'm powerless to not correct people when they commit it ... sorry

[Paladin]

24. So Shoot Me.

[former9thward]

36. Your shouting won't help your position.

When the founders wrote the Constitution the word "regulation" did not exist as we now use it. It meant "trained". All of the Bill of Rights applied to individuals. That is why they were written and placed in the Constitution.

[BlueNoteSpecial]

18. "Scalia wrong"....gee, what ARE the odds?

[brett_jv]

22. Okay, Fine, Larry ... lets' just remove ALL regulations on gun ownership then ...

Seeing as how the 2nd Amendment doesn't give society the right to restrict ownership at ALL, I guess we need to allow all the felons and mentally-ill people to 'keep' whatever arms they desire.

OTOH, since the 2a doesn't say ANYTHING about who's allowed to SELL guns ... we will go ahead and outlaw their sale altogether, moving forward. Including used gun sales, among private buyers.

If you want to get all literal on us, we'll go ahead and do the same. Sound good, LARRY?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

26. GOA makes NRA look sane. They are the fringe's fringe.

[samsingh]

27. how crazy r u when scalia, the likely enabler of an

election being stolen, is too moderate for you?

[patrice]

28. I give up. Now they've got ME thinking about secession.

. . .

[judesedit]

31. The 2nd Amendment says "a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA" not a free-for-all for nincompoops

[okaawhatever]

32. Another colossal error in the thinking of these types is that the "gov't" is separate from the

people of the U.S. as in "this is not something where the gov't is supposed to be free to tell we the people, the gov't boss, how much-how far we can go" It isn't the "gov't" as in some magical made up third person. Fact is, the gov't is representing the other citizens of the United States, those who don't agree with you. The gov't isn't telling "we the people" what guns you can have. It's the majority of "we the people" who are deciding that. The formal gov't is their way of doing something about it.

[pipoman]

56. The Constitution

and Bill of Rights are constraints on government. The government can not move beyond the constraints of the constitution without a constitutional amendment. Constitutional amendments require consent of the people. No, the government cannot willynilly ban anything which is enumerated in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. This leaves many of the ideas people have been espousing in these parts impossible constitutional hurtles. The "gun show loophole&quot sic) is a prime example..

[Bandit]

67. Unless of course we have a "War on Terror"

Then the Constitution can be trampled without objection. The Patriot Act for example.. It certainly did not require a constitutional amendment to eliminate our very Basic Rights such as Habeas Corpus, Speedy Trial, Trial by Jury and by Peers, ban against indefinate detention without trial or charges....etc.etc. I am sure guns can be taken away under the very same authority.....

[pipoman]

68. It surprises me how many wish for such a thing..

there really are members here who love Bush's Patriot Act apparently..wanting to expand it and all

[kiranon]

33. If what the 2nd Amendment meant when it was written

is the standard (a la Scalia and his faux original intent) only the weapons they had then are covered by the Amendment. Semi automatic weapons and beyond were not part of the scene when the 2nd Amendment was written.

[elleng]

34. Sure, and it also says 'A well-regulated militia

being necessary to the security of a free State.'

I disagree with the interpretation, current unfortunately, that this clause is not necessary.

[Buzz Clik]

55. Hey! We only read the parts that we like.

[booley]

38. you know the 2nd amendment isnt' the only place "militias" are mentioned

In powers of the congress, Congress has some power over militias, as do states.

Indeed one of the things congress can do is order militias to put down insurrections (which might be a problem if you think we are supposed to have guns to keep the government in check)

I don't think the founders saw the 2nd amendment and gun ownership like freedom of speech so much as like Jury duty.

[truebluegreen]

42. What amuses me about Fat Tony the Originalist

is that he doesn't stick to what was the norm at the time the Constitution was adopted visavis guns.

Should be muskets and cannon, nothing more.

But then he's always the opportunist.

[MADem]

45. This is wryly hilarious, in a sick sort of way. nt

[leanforward]

46. Scalia said that?

That man has more value than I thought after Citizens United.

[graham4anything]

52. The NRA says the 2nd means A well armed Zimmerman on every street corner

regulating every kid packing skittles or even M&M's

[Buzz Clik]

54. Damned activist leftist Supreme Court. What's that?

Oh.

Well.

Thank God we have people like Larry Pratt around to keep the SCOTUS in line.

[JDPriestly]

59. I will believe that gun owners really care about freedom and the Second Amendment and civil

rights when they express as much outrage about a woman being served a citation by the police for singing in the Wisconsin rotunda as they do about their gun rights.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022187343

First Amendment rights must be protected first. Then you can think about other rights. But without the First Amendment rights, you have no other rights.

No one should need a permit to speak or sing or walk on the sidewalks anywhere in this country that is a public space.