Justice Antonin Scalia appeared Sunday morning on Fox News to discuss gun ownership, where he made these remarkable, and terrifying comments:
Coming out that he feels that shoulder launched missile ownership is constitutional reveals that there is no rational basis for his positions. He waves off cannon ownership by stating it cannot be carried by a person, so is not covered, and then goes on that something which a person can carry would be fine. But, he neglects to recall what can be carried by a person.
Yes, you read that right. A nuclear weapon would fit in Scalia’s definition as to what is constitutionally protected for individual ownership. A product of the 1950’s nuclear arms race, the Davy Crockett was a field deployed tactical nuclear weapon. It is man-portable, unlike the cannon he feels would not pass constitutional muster. It sports the W-54 nuclear warhead, weighing 26kg, and has an explosive yield of which is 12x more powerful than the Oklahoma City bomb placed by Timothy McVeigh.
But, in Scalia’s world viewpoint, the idea of regulation is evil incarnate. So what if people are likely to die, thousands if not millions of them with the unrestricted access to heavy artillery. He upheld his own distorted view of the US where George Washington fought to make sure that people have the right to own weapons capable of destroying an entire city block.
Of course, in writing his Supreme Court decision for District of Columbia vs Heller Scalia completely ignored the wording of the very 2nd Amendment he was discussing. In fact, key words of his own decision in the case undermines his argument here. In his decision, he speaks of “weapons common at the time” but in this he argues that shoulder launched surface to air missiles would qualify. How many people feel that a FIM-92 Stinger is a “common” weapon?
There are activist judges, and Justice Scalia is one of the largest offenders of legislating from the bench. The Supreme Court is to interpret laws not create them.
Scalia obviously failed civics class.