If Scalia wanted to rely on the Second Amendment he would have to accept that fact that first clause DEFINES the purpose of the second clause. There is a right to bear arms for that is the only way to have an effective Militia. The people without ARMS can NOT be formed into any type of effective Militia, thus for the people to be able to form militia they must have access to arms.
At the same time the authors of the Second Amendment had just fought a war where the Militia had played a very effective part. Both sides of the Gun Control Argument tends to ignore a cruxcial factor in the US Militia in the late 1700s, that in reality we had three type of Militia. The New England Militia, which was almost as effective as regular troops. The Southern Militia whose main job was beating up slaves to make sure they would not escape (and as such ever poor troops do to lack of training for instead of Training the Militia was put on "Patrol" at certain points to make sure any Slaves were on those roads with permission of their masters (These groups were also given the right to kill any slave they THOUGHT may be able to do something in the nature of rebellion, the hostility of Southern Whites to African Americans noted up till the 1950s can be traced to this tradition that started in the 1600s).
Gun Control advocates tend to site the various comments about the Southern Militia being "Useless", but ignore the fact that such comments are almost always directed at Southern Militia units NOT units from New England.
Now in between the South and New England you have the mid Atlantic States. Scalia hates these most of all for Pennsylvanian had no Militia till 1758 because the Quakers opposes any Military organizations (While stealing lands from the Native Americans and selling that land to Scot Irish escaping from Ireland and its problems with England). The Quakers did not want to accept that unpleasant fact that one can NOT steal land AND not have a way to suppress the victim's willingness to resort to violence to get that land back. Thus the Scot-Irish ended up forming they own Militia Units (Called Associations) to fight off the Native Americans. Since they did not have the power of the State to force everyone to be a member they were NOT as good as the New England Militia, but because they main purpose was NOT to suppress slaves, they were better then the Southern Militia.
New Jersey had a similar problem as Pennsylvania. Maryland and Delaware were Slave holding states thus they followed the Southern Tradition as to Militia. New York followed New England's policy in up State New York, but as you near New York City its militia became more like Pennsylvania's later Militia (and New York City's Militia seems to have adopted an almost Southern Attitude, given the high concentration of Slaves In New York City during the Colonial Period).
Scalia's ignored all of the above, for once you study it and how the Militia was used during the Revolution, you can see why the SAME CONGRESS THAT PASSED THE BILL OF RIGHTS, passed a Militia Act that made membership MANDATORY and set STANDARDS as to what weapons the Militia was to have.
All Free White Males were members of the Militia. Every male (After the passage of the Post Civil War Amendments to the Constitution the term "Free White Males" became "Males" by operations of those Amendments) was a member of the Militia (And this is STILL the law in the US to this day, The Militia in the US consists of two groups, those people, including women, who are members of the National Guard AND all other males who are members of what is called the "Reserved Militia" of the US).
The Standards the First Congress adopted reflected what had been found effective (and what had been found needed) during the Revolution. That every man had to carry what he needed to live in the field (pack and tent or other form of cover), and a weapon of the same caliber used by the Regular Army. i.e. NOT Pistols, except if the unit was of a type of unit that normally carried pistols (at the time of the Revolution that was Cavalry only) but the equivalent of today's M-16s.
Scalia has hinted that the ban on AUTOMATIC weapon he would uphold for it IS not a weapon in general use (i.e. 40% of all gun sales today are pistols, prior to the 1960s that percentage was less then 10% and this is NOT the result of reduction in over all sales, but the huge increase in pistol sales) unlike Pistols which are a weapon in "General use".
Now, you have to understand even with all of the mass killings we have seen, overall pistols account for over 69% of all homicides. Rifles and Shotguns (Including the weapons used in the "mass killings" account for less then 5% of all Homicides (Knives, Clubs and fists actually cause more deaths then rifles or shotguns). Yet Scalia is willing to permit people to have pistols and has indicated he would uphold the ban on automatic weapons (deny a ban actually killing more people, but justify a ban on a weapon that does few).
The Conspiracy nut in me says this is because a man with a pistol, is NOT a threat in a revolt, but a man with a rifle is.
Now, if you read his opinion, Scalia goes on and on about the right to self defense, a right not listed in the Bill of rights. He ignores (as does the dissent) that the law of the time period (1700s) held a person liable for any gun powder the went off (even if the person with the gun powder did NOTHING wrong), that if you fired a weapon you are liable for anything the bullet hits (And that is still the law), and that incompetents were routinely denied access to weapons.
Scalia and the dessent also ignored that Congress when it set up the Militia in 1792 and again in 1795 not only set up how the troops were to be formed up, but what ammunition the weapons the Militia had could use (The Militia of 1775 used ,75 caliber Brown Bess muskets, but with the French providing most weapons after 1777, but 1792 the standard US Musket was a copy of the .69 caliber French musket of the time period, it was this Caliber that was to be the Caliber of the Infantrymen that made up 90% of the US Militia under the Militia Act of 1792).
Sorry, I disagree with both the Majority and the Dissent in the recent cases involving firearms and the Second Amendment. I believe the Second Amendment permits anyone in the US to own a military usable weapon. I believe Congress (and the states) has the right to restrict what caliber that weapon will be (Through the caliber restrictions has to have Military and supply purposes only, thus what the US Army is using is a guide to what MUST be permitted). Congress and the States can ban possession of any weapon where the owner can NOT protect others from harm of that weapon
Side note on Ammunition. Small Arms ammunition, even if stored improperly, rarely causes injuries. If a fire should reach small arm ammunition, the brass case tends to prevent the fire from reaching the powder. If the heat does cause the round to go off, that the round is NOT confined means the blast will be in all directions and thus it is rare for bullets from such rounds to end up more then a few inches from the case it was "Fired" from. You hear a lot of explosions in such fires, but very few projectiles. Small arm ammunition is thus inherently safe.
This is unlike Atomic bombs (that have a large radiation affect in the area where they are stored) and Cannon ammunition, which tends to be the same as small arms, but on a larger scale. Having more powder involved you have a good chance that the Powder will burn and the resulting soot would act as a confining agent and permit the rest to explode (The is believed to what happened In the Texas City Disaster, through that involved Nitrate based fertilizer not actual gun powder, but both are inter related for both are nitrate based). In simple terms, large caliber cannons can cause problems of improperly stored and thus additional restrictions can be imposed on them to make sure they are safely stored. This was the rule in the 1700s and should be the rule under the Second Amendment. Given that radiation is a side affect of Atomic bombs a similar (and to a high degree stricter) rule can apply to Nuclear, Biological can Chemical Weapons. These types of weapons are NOT the norm for the Militia to carry.
Just a Comment that I see Scalia refusing to expand his decision to include Assault Rifles and Machine Guns (Which in my opinion do come under the Second Amendment) for these are NOT weapons in common use among civilians today (Scalia's rationale against the ban on Pistols). I suspect the real reason is these weapons will be effective in a revolt, unlike pistols whose use would be marginal at best.
= new reply since forum marked as read
NO CLUE!
