https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday.""
Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.
Scalia said he would consider the limitations society observed when the Constitution was written -- and then "see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."
Earlier in his interview with Chris Wallace, Scalia explained his approach to judging the constitutionality of a law: "Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that -- but the text of the statute.
"Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. So --"
Wallace interrupted: "So, if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century."
"Exactly," Scalia replied.
"Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says "yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed" on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. It's up to future court cases to determine what those limitations are, he said on "Fox News Sunday.""
Some limitations "undoubtedly" are permissible, Scalia said, because limitations existed when the Constitution was written: "For example, there was a tort called affrighting, which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head ax or something, that was, I believe, a misdemeanor," he explained.
Scalia said he would consider the limitations society observed when the Constitution was written -- and then "see what those limitations are as applied to modern weapons."
Earlier in his interview with Chris Wallace, Scalia explained his approach to judging the constitutionality of a law: "Textualism means you are governed by the text. That's the only thing that is relevant to your decision, not whether the outcome is desirable, not whether legislative history says this or that -- but the text of the statute.
"Originalism says that when you consult the text, you give it the meaning it had when it was adopted, not some later modern meaning. So --"
Wallace interrupted: "So, if it was the Constitution written in the 18th century, you try to find what those words meant in the 18th century."
"Exactly," Scalia replied.
