Survival Gear

Supreme Court Justice Scalia Found Dead: Are Gun Rights Now at Risk?

Associate Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead of apparent natural causes Saturday in his room at a luxury resort in West Texas. The Supreme Court Justice was one of the top Constitutional Conservatives on the bench, and was often the deciding vote in favor of the 2nd amendment and other important constitutional issues.

Antonin Gregory Scalia, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

Justice Scalia was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in September 1986. He was considered to be one of the most influential conservative constitutionalists on the court. His death could swing the balance of the court, causing many to worry about the future of not only our 2nd amendment rights, but all of our other constitutional rights as well.

Scalia was the longest serving justice on the Supreme Court, and was considered to be a strict originalist.

He described his views on the originalism:

The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded to the death of the Supreme Court justice in a written statement:

“Justice Antonin Scalia was a man of God, a patriot, and an unwavering defender of the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. He was the solid rock who turned away so many attempts to depart from and distort the Constitution. His fierce loyalty to the Constitution set an unmatched example, not just for judges and lawyers, but for all Americans. We mourn his passing, and we pray that his successor on the Supreme Court will take his place as a champion for the written Constitution and the Rule of Law. Cecilia and I extend our deepest condolences to his family, and we will keep them in our thoughts and prayers.”

Justice Scalia was staying at a guest at the Cibolo Creek Ranch in the Big Bend region of Texas just south of the town of Marfa.

A federal official who asked not to be named said there was no evidence of foul play and it appeared that Scalia died of natural causes. An investigation into the death of Justice Scalia is being conducted by the U.S. Marshal Service, the sheriff’s office in Presidio County, Texas and the FBI.

14 Comments on Supreme Court Justice Scalia Found Dead: Are Gun Rights Now at Risk?

  1. Patriot

    We are done! Gun rights will be the first to go, this could not have happened at a worst time. Obama has 11 months to reshape this country in ways you never could have imagined.

    • Adam

      Obama would have to get any candidates through the current Congress.

      • Patriot

        Republicans have caved so many times for this guy that we will see.

        • Adam

          They also haven’t caved a bunch of times. I wouldn’t worry too much about this little bump – lots of big bumps coming ahead – yes?

          • hardh8Enter your name...

            “They also haven’t caved a bunch of times.” Are you kidding??? They’ve caved so many times we need to send out a mountain rescue team to find out if any DEMOrepublicans are still left alive

          • Frank Johnson

            When was that exactly? All I can remember, in the last seven years, is big talk and quick surrender.

    • Keith

      We are screwed!!!

  2. Adam

    When I heard the news, yours is the first website I popped over to to see if you’d heard and responded to this turn of events. I own several firearms, but I also feel that the degree of public access to them isn’t always an easy question to answer Ultimately almost everyone feels that there is some line somewhere between weapons that should be reasonably available to the public (say a musket), and weapons that would turn the world into a living holocaust nightmare, were they to be widely circulating within the population (consider a hypothetical rifle that fires nuclear weapons). I don’t know where that line really should be, but I do believe it’s not an easy question to answer – and that there are negative outcomes to wherever that line is drawn (be it to our liberty, or to our safety). But as Franklin suggested maybe too far on one side grants us neither anyhow. Scalia and I had differing opinions on a number of questions, but one must respect his steadfast adherence to his own values.

    • Defcon1your name...

      Dear Adam,
      Your ‘well thought, common sense’ comments are a big steaming pile. ANY gun laws ONLY affect , ONLY are followed by LAW abiding citizens. Criminals don’t give a whip, DUH! Think about the many serial killings that have occurred in recent years, coincidentally under OMuslims regime, all happening in gun free zones. How did that work out for you?
      Loved how you said we can keep our ‘muskets’ lol. You are truly a moron, but thanks for the laugh.
      bottomline, the Second Amendment protects the rest of the Amendments and our freedoms as the American People. Don’t touch or INFRINGE my rights.
      It’s that simple, there is no ‘vague line’
      We don’t need any other gun laws.
      Stick that in your bong and smoke it.

      • Texan

        At times like this, I’m glad I live in Texas!! Molon Labe!

      • Adam

        If I could bring this back to civility (ad hominems being left in the playground) I’d suggest that the basic laws you’re talking about aren’t the only limits on the populace in terms of their access. The entire panoply of regulation limits things. If it didn’t why wouldn’t every major city in the US already have been nuked by one insane person/group or another. When you, I or anyone else rages against a rule for the negative aspects of it (and I agree that there are costs of regulation in terms of limiting the freedoms of people who present no danger to anyone) – but ignores the positive attributes, it’s akin to complaining about all government expenditures while you’re driving down an interstate highway. The fact is that having some limits on the availability of certain weapons is what is allowing us to have this conversation right now – as opposed to sifting through nuclear fallout for food. You or I may not like the costs of some regulation, but to deny that there are any benefits at all isn’t reality-based. With that said you don’t REALLY disagree that there should be some line somewhere between what’s publicly available or not – and that the question of where to draw that line is a very difficult one? Do you?

        I intended this reply as a way of possibly clarifying what I wrote earlier. I don’t really engage in debates online anymore as I’ve tended to find doing so has a similar impact on my time as burning twenty dollarbills would have on my wallet. So if you remain unmoved and still would like for muskets, AR-15’s, cluster bombs, and nuclear warheads to be available for anyone who can afford them at the local Walmart, there’s no real need to reply. I DO hope my clarification resonates, if not… well, we may well get witness the experiment of large arms proliferation play out in our lifetimes, so I suppose that would clarify for both of us whether we were better off while this genie was still partly restrained in the bottle – or totally uncorked.

  3. B from CA

    Sad day and a big loss for America.
    Hope we get a descent replacement. Doubtful.

  4. JAS

    Look for a recess appointment between July 18 and Sept 5. He can legally do so, just as it has been done in the past. The justice can then serve for some length of time before they have to go before the Senate. That would give him enough time to get several EO through the court during his term.

  5. Ed

    Adam, I agree with you that there have to be lines drawn as to what is available and what is not, for example a nuke. This isn’t a choice we can pass off to a higher power,
    so it seems we mere mortals will have to deal with it. Everyone needs to be involved and when and hopefully when if it gets settled, everyone should respect the final decision .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*