Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
In 2008 Justice Antonin Scalia introduced another interpretation that gun proponents seize on to argue against gun control. He wrote the Supreme Court decision that individuals have the right to own firearms. But Scalia also stated, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” He approved of “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
The problem I have with what Scalia said with his double negative, "not unlimited" is that he cops out from saying directly that it is limited. So why doesn't he say that "most rights are limited"?--that is the positive result of the double negative. And the double negative coming from his inclusion of it in an Court interpretation leaves the decision open to entirely voiding the 2A. For if there is no absoluteness to it, then it cannot claim any absolute immunity from being denied by some interpretation of the need to protect society.
If he cannot tell us in what way it is absolute, then it is not guaranteed, and can be eliminated if five Justices so decide. Saying that it is "not unlimited" without pointing out in what way it is unlimited, is saying that it is not an unalienable right, but rather a right or privilege granted by government, and can be limited or made void at the whim of government. Which is not what the framers of the Constitution said in the text of the Amendment.