Tweet
Supreme Court Justice and RPG Enthusiast Antonin Scalia
It is a well know fact that when a right wing zealot is invited onto Fox News, you’re likely to hear the the most extreme forms of right wing nuttiness, while the Fox interviewer barely flinches at the sheer nuttiness. And that rule apparently applies to radical right wing Supreme Court Justices.
Zach Ford at Think Progress caught Justice Antonin Scalia telling Chris Wallace and Fox viewers that under his view of the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, the “right to keep and bear arms” extends to whatever a man not affiliated with any militia can physically carry and aim at another human being, including a launcher for rocket propelled grenades. From Think Progress:
Scalia admitted there could be [limits], such as “frighting” (carrying a big ax just to scare people), but they would still have to be determined with an 18th-Century perspective in mind. According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right to “bear arms”:
WALLACE: What about… a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?
SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried — it’s to keep and “bear,” so it doesn’t apply to cannons — but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.
WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?
SCALIA: Very carefully.
Well, gee, Antonin, thanks for leaving that one out there as undecided.
Under Justice Scalia, the 2nd Amendment’s reference to “a well regulated militia” is mostly superfluous; it has no effect on deciding who gets to carry lethal weapons or what manner of “arms” anyone can “keep and bear.” What matters is whether a potential mass murderer can actually hold the weapon and bear it into the vicinity of the target.
Scalia's view of a well armed non-militia? (U.S.Army photo by Gary L. Kieffer)
And since under this right wing quackery, the point has some connection to nut cases protecting their individual notions of personal liberty, and not a “regulated militia protecting the community, then I suppose his view of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure citizens can be armed with sufficiently lethal weapons, not constrained by 18th century technology, to pose a meaningful threat to whatever institution our now fully armed and freedom loving nut case views as a threat to his/her personal liberty.
We should stop here to recall that the Tea-Party/GOP has consistently maintained the entire Affordable Care Act’s “mandate” is the most serious threat to individual liberty ever conceived in the minds of a Kenyan Socialist, a conservative think tank, or the GOP Presidential nominee. And notwithstanding this serious threat to individual liberty, the mandate was saved by none other than conservative Chief Justice Roberts.
So Justice Scalia’s theory would appear to support the right of any nutcase to purchase rocket propelled grenades and launcher, because you never know when a freedom loving psychopath that any well regulated militia would exclude as unfit for service wants to aim an RPG towards the offices of the Chief Justice of the United States.
46 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
In defense of Scalia’s point of view,
(1) Is there any doubt that the framers intended the right to bear arms as:
(a) most importantly, a final backstop against government oppression
(b) for people like James Madison, in lieu of a standing army
(2) Don’t you think it occurrs to Wall Street fatcats that when Obama says, “I’m the only one standing between you and the pitchforks” he really means, “I’m the only one standing between you and the assault rifles?”
(3) If Second Amendment rights are muzzled by corporatist oligarchs like Michael Bloomberg, what will replace them as a more modern final backstop against capitalist excess?
(a) One possible answer is mutual disarmament by the government, which is what progressives should be arguing for every time they mention gun control.
(4) The same day of the Colorado massacre, 22 people died in a bus crash in Mexico, and hardly anyone noticed. Those people are just as dead. What are we going to do about that?
Well I’m just guessing here but maybe we can send all are politicians on a bus ride south of the border.
No but as one of the three major brake-manufacturing countries perhaps we could figure out how to make brakes that don’t fail on the downhill, leaving packed buses careening off cliffs.
In that case, can’t we also restrict the weapons borne to an 18th century perspective–only single shot weapons, for example?
How about IED’s? It would certainly add a new challenge to navigating midtown Manhattan’s traffic.
My neighbor had a sign on his front door that said his house was protected by a thermonuclear device. Under Scalia’s definition he could have his wish come true.
Taking into consideration the lax background checks and the ease that multi weapons are acquired and ammunition are acquired, Al Qaeda must be cheering our predilection to self destruction.
Uh, that’s silly.
I doubt even Scalia would argue that the reason people should have the right to carry assault rifles is so that they can threaten to stage an armed assault on the Stock Exchange the next time the market tanks. His view is absurd no matter how you frame it.
And it’s small comfort to argue that the way to protect us from ultra risky financial trading is to put RPGs/launchers in the hands of nut cases. If that were likely, I suspect the Wall Street boys would have the money to hire their own protection, and we could reenact thug scenes from the Dark Knight Rises.
(2nd para: Chris Wallace, not Mike)
I love reductio ad absurdum arguments.
However, I usually reserve them for my friends and to make a point in a blog.
I’ll bet that “Mike” Wallace was glad to hear he’s still alIve and working for Fox News.
The 2nd amendment grants the right to “keep and bear arms”. It does not grant the right to use them in any way. Funny how Scalia insists on following the Constitution to the letter except when he disagrees with it.
So many thru-the-looking glass quotes to choose from…
Thanks. I’ll fix.
Book Salon up with Sanford Levinson’s Framed: America’s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance hosted by Aziz Huq
Yes, but so long as the projectile hits someone not named Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, or Alito, all will be forgiven by FOX News and Ann Coulter.
of course ZEALOT,is kind word to what this brain damaged maniac is….oy
Under Justice Scalia, the 2nd Amendment’s reference to “a well regulated militia” is mostly superfluous; it has no effect on deciding who gets to carry lethal weapons…
The reason the reference has no effect is because it is indeed superflous. The 2A isn’t about the rights of the militia, it’s about the rights of the people. I get that you don’t like that, but that’s what it is.
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the Constitution “grants” us our rights. It does not.* The Constitution protects rights that are inherent. Mostly what the Constitution is is a check on the power of government. The Bill of Rights grants no rights, it protects your rights that exist and would exist even in the complete absence of the BoR.
See “We Don’t Need No Steenking 2nd Amendment. Principally about the 2A, but also addresses the broader issue of the source of our rights.
I look forward to Scalia’s deeply principled thoughts on the founders’ intention to protect our right to carry suitcase nukes.
I don’t agree with Scalia exactly, but his point that limitations on the second amendment should be decided “very carefully” is apt.
For example, the public safety risk of RPG’s probably outweighs individual liberty, but you would want to design that limitation in the least intrusive way possible, perhaps by restricting exploding ammunition.
In exchange we should be demanding strict enforcement of Posse Comitatus, so that military hardware is not used on American soil. Right now, that’s being flouted left and right.
I think Romberry says it well.
Scalia did indeed encourage someone to get a RPG.
Tune in next time when Scalia says it’s constitutional for a crazy to own a nuclear weapon.
If we’re going to keep an 18th century perspective in mind, then it logically follows that the 2nd amendment only applies to 18th century weapons.
Scalia is a hypocrite who alternates between being an originalist and an activist depending on which gives him the warped outcome he desires.
That’s a strawman because nobody who has the facilities to build a suitcase nuclear bomb (the U.S., Israel–using our technology–and Russia) care about a wit about the second amendment or lack thereof.
Fine with me. But in that case then the government should also be limited to 18th century weapons, except in times of invasion.
On the list of deaths caused by things that are easily preventable, gun violence is pretty far down on the list.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Preventable_causes_of_death.png
If gun grabbers were really interested in saving lives, they would serve humanity far better by refocusing their efforts to banning cigarettes, sugar, and vehicles. But I don’t believe they are interested at all in making me safer; this is really about controlling what I’m allowed to buy and do with my time, isn’t? Well if it’s fine if you want to be control freaks–but it’d at least my less hypocritically offensive to advocate for banning vehicles along with guns.
By the way, there is no Constitutional Amendment specifically giving people the right to smoke–from a purely legalistic view, don’t you all think it’d be a lot less futile to advocate for getting cigarettes listed as a schedule 1 narcotic than to fruitlessly rail against the Supreme Court-affirmed right Americans have to individually bear arms?
Well, thanks. It’s about time someone stood up for my right to own a 105 mm Howitzer.
R we not allowed to buy the nuke from someone else like a gun? Only seems right to me!
I assure you I don’t care if you kill yourself with sugar or tobacco, so long as appropriate provisions are made to insure that you pay for whatever medical care you might want to consume as a result of your intemperance. My interest in guns is to make sure you and your nutcase friends don’t kill me or my family or my friends.
A stinger missile is good enough for me. Can take out most anything with that.
Seems deaths by guns may be in a growth trend?
I think you said under Justice. Scalia? Hmmm does that mean…… Oh never mind.
Three Words for Scalia: Hand Held Nukes
So what say you about the electoral college? Reasonable?
The standard rule of statutory and constitutional interpretation is to give effect to all of the words as the draftees intended. It’s not okay to declare to be superfluous words and phrases whose meaning is clear, and dishonest to do so because the clear meaning of all the words is inconvenient to ones preferred reading. But it never fails that that half reading makes an appearance under the guise that if they don’t like it’s implication, it must not matter. How convenient.
What’s with the tv interviews for Judges of the supreme court?
very odd.
What if it said:
Wouldn’t you agree that speech outside the context of a “public debate” is protected by this clause?
Or would you say the t-shirt reading “Fuck Bush. Fuck Scalia” is not protected because it is an expletive, not part of a debate.
thank you! you took the words right outta my mouth!!
He’s just one vote out of the predictable set of conservative votes on what is supposed to be a nonpartisan body of government.
STFU already, Tony!
Ah yes, the flickering flame of Carlotta Valdes originalism.
In Vertigo, Carlotta is the 19th century possessing spirit of a 20th century woman, the story goes. Carlotta gives way so that the woman can drive a car, dress herself in impeccable high urban chic, find places in San Francisco that only existed post-earthquake, and so on, until comes the time to make a certain fateful leap. Then, that leap takes place at a nice low point underneath the most famous suicide leap-off point in the world.
Call me crazy but those words suggest to me that the state may regulate a militia, like the national guard. And citizen soldiers may keep and bear arms.
Wouldn’t you have to say ” a well regulated public debate to make it comparable? That would imply the insult was regulated?
Can we get Justice Ginsberg to give Scalia a gag order?
Don’t get distracted by any suggested analogy. Remember, the whole argument depends on getting people to forget an entire phrase of actual words which provides context and meaning to the rest of the words. But the rule of construction is, you have to read and give meaning to all the words. And in this case, with the actual wording, you can, so you must, and there is no legal or logical excuse for not doing so.
It doesn’t matter if someone comes up with ten other ways to rewrite the actual wording. Those are distractions from the actual wording and the rule for interpreting them.
So the example is a meaningless distraction and does not respond to the issue: why did they ignore the 2nd amendments actual words and turn the rest into something inimical to those words, when they could have been given a plain, obvious meaning with all the words? The commenter has dodged answering that. To deflect from that is an intellectual sleight of hand.
The sole purpose of the analogy, as corrected by bluedot, is to substitute something you want to protect (figurative sniping) for something you want to abolish (real sniping), in hopes that it will help you see that your demand for a perfectly literal parsing is not rooted in good faith.
The awkward language of the second amendment was an attempt to bridge differences between Federalists and anti-Federalists, but it is clear the latter won the debate, and the tortured language was a fig leaf for the Federalists. Otherwise there wouldn’t be a second amendment at all.
What you call awkward language and fig leaf is what others would call actual language, even if the result of compromise, but it doesn’t matter. The final wording must be given effect if there is a logical interpretation that does that. You don’t get to haul in someone’s view of historical context or descriptions like fig leaf unless you can’t make sense of the actual wording. Wanting a different meaning is not an excuse for doing that.
Well, I do not particularly agree with Scalia’s reading of the Second Amendment in Heller, but parsing that which has been established legally and properly by the only final arbiter that matters, the Supreme Court, is a futile exercise. It is what Heller says it is.
What strikes me, at least, as more important is that the nature of what Scalia said is being wildly mischaracterized, not just here, but all over the web. In this regard, I think BMull and Romberry are getting close to how I view this. All Scalia really said was that the 2nd Amendment may not prohibit possession of a rocket launcher. What he did not say was that the 2nd does necessarily so hold, or that, if it does, possession of a rocket launcher may not be otherwise illegal and prohibited.
All the click clack that he thinks possession of RPGs (not by Scarecrow, but I have seen many make that assertion today) is scurrilous. Heller does not prohibit all regulation of weapons, and almost certainly would not prohibit regulation of RPGs. Scalia was correctly stating the text would not answer the question. The inquiry goes much further. In short say what you will about Scalia, and I will agree with most of it, but he is getting a bum rap here.
what silly trash.
really?
why does carrying a big ax have to be considered with an 18th-Century perspective in mind , while using a weapon that shoots 100 rounds a minute is only a “we’ll see”?
this scalia is a right wing lunatic.
because he made it to the SC as a reliable bag man doesnt change that.