Second Amendment Case - anyone else catch the contradiction?

Question

Justice Scalia discusses at length the fact that a significant factor behind the second amendment was the concern that the government could use its own militias to disarm individual gun owners who might be a threat to the government, like the Stuarts did in England to the Protestants in the 1600s and like King George III did in the colonies in the 1760s and 1770s. 

Meaning, one of the justifications for the right to bear arms in the second amendment was so that we as individual citizens can protect ourselves from the government's attempt to unlawfully disarm us. If the government comes to disarm me with a tank, I need an anti-tank weapon to defend my right to bear arms. 

However, later in the opinion Scalia suggests in dicta that the opinion should not be read to limit a states' ability to prohibit or regulate ownership of "unusual weapons" or something to that effect. But how can I keep the government from unlawfully disarming me with just a handgun or a shotgun?

Anonymous · Accepted Answer

The government is not going to send a tank to disarm you....  

Further, I love people who make this big case about a supposed contradiction in a ruling and use language like "or something to that effect"....

How are you sure of a contradiction if you can't even quote the ruling?

Aegis of Freedom · Answer

You are assuming a one-on-one situation. There are 80 million gun owners in America, there are fewer than 2 million Americans that carry arms for the military. Furthermore, at least half of the military would not follow those orders and would fight with the citizens. So it would be tank on tank plus overwhelming numbers.

That said, I disagree that citizens should be prevented from owning "unusual weapons". As long as the weapon is kept on private property, and the owner is properly trained, I don't see any reason a law abiding citizen can't own an anti-tank weapon. But that's just my opinion.

open4one · Answer

It isn't a contradiction because it is "dicta".  It means as little as the Dissent.  

The case and the ruling was about handgun laws.  If someone wants to own a flamethrower, that will be another case altogether.  When that happens, we'll find out if he was thinking of grenades, anti-tank weapons, or "nucular" weapons.

raichasays · Answer

Footnote 2 can be read to mean that you are entitled to any weapon "in common use at the time" not just handguns or shotguns.

Anonymous · Answer

Reread the opinion It does not imply that at all.You are misinterpreting Judge Scalia

Anonymous · Answer

Good marksmanship.

Trending News

Second Amendment Case - anyone else catch the contradiction?

6 Answers