Scalia’s comments this weekend open the door to more gun control legislation

Photo credit: US Mission Geneva

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday the Second Amendment leaves open the possibility of gun-control legislation, adding to what has become a slow-boiling debate on the issue since the Colorado movie theater massacre earlier this month.

Scalia, one of the high court’s most conservative justices, said on “Fox News Sunday” that the majority opinion in the landmark 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller stated the extent of gun ownership “will have to be decided in future cases.”


“We’ll see,” he said.

Scalia’s comments follow the July 20 massacre at the Aurora, Colo., movie theater in which the alleged gunman, with the help of a semi-automatic weapon and an ammunition clip that could hold as many as 100 rounds, killed 12 and wounded 59 others.

His comments also follow those of lawmakers who have called for tougher gun-related laws in the wake of the shootings – most recently New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg and New York Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, Democrats who said Sunday they will introduce legislation this week to “make it harder for criminals to anonymously stockpile ammunition through the Internet, as was done before the recent tragic shooting in Aurora, Colorado.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Publisher’s Note:  Scalia also noted in his interview on Fox News Sunday that an original construction of the Constitution opens the door to gun limitations as well, noting that the Second Amendment allows us only to “keep and bear arms.”  The word “bear” means that the Founders intended some restrictions, at the minimum allowing prohibition of weapons that cannot be carried.

 

  • m123s

    The Declaration of Independence-“Endowed by Our Creator”. The U.S.Constitution is signed “The Year of Our Lord”. Somewhere along the way in America we have it twisted, and will never be satisfied with the govt. god. To put Our faith/trust in man is a sad situation [Jer.17:5].

  • marineh2ominer

    Obviously , this brilliant conservative jurist can’t decipher the very difficult to comprehend statement , ” SHALL NOT INFRINGE ” , I am not too bright , but it does seem relatively clear to me , as in ” The right of the people to keep and bear arms ” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED . Would that not mean that every gun law on the books , now and in the future is obviously an ” infringment ” ?

    • don

      You are correct. Roberts and now ScaliaI being stupid? It ooks as if the so called “conservative” part of the supreme court is being compromised, and they have started to join the left in screwing over the legal citizens of this country. Who is next?

  • AKEK

    OK, so “bear arms” means my ownership of a cannon might be regulated — fair enough. But then it also has to mean that the government cannot prevent me from carrying small arms *on my person*. Can’t have one without the other.