I disagree with Scalia. Nothing in the 4th amendment says that there is a limit on gun ownership. In fact the 4th amendment says nothing about limiting arms. It only said that you have the right to own and bear arms.

Where does Scalia or any other justice have the right to rewrite the US Constitution? They should not have that power. They can run on whether it's constitutional or not but they can't write their own laws. IMHO.

Judicial activism is raising it's head when Scalia says that the rights are not unlimited. Can he show us were in the constitution is said we are limited in our right to own and BEAR arms? He can't do that because that's not what the founding fathers wrote into our constitution.

Read the words that are on the parchment not what you think should be on the parchment.

Quote Originally Posted by RoadToad View Post
One of the most important Supreme Court rulings ever. Personally, I'm all in favor of reasonable gun control. As Scalia pointed out, the rights granted under the Second Amendment are not unlimited, so the states still have latitude to regulate gun ownership, they just can't outlaw it outright. I have no problem with that at all. And really, the old argument that 'the right to keep and bear arms' clause refers to the militia, not the people, doesn't make sense. Why would we need it written into the Constitution that the army is allowed to carry guns? And even if, as Breyer said, handgun crime is out of control, that's not relevant to the question of whether this law was constitutional or not.

Now, it's going to be really interesting to see what happens to crime rates in D.C., and also how those crime rates are reported in the media. And as I watch, I'll be keeping in mind that "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."