House Majority Whip Steve Scalise. (Photo: NBC Meet the Press)
House Majority Whip Steve Scalise’s belief in the Second Amendment is unwavering.
In an interview Sunday with Chuck Todd from NBC’s “Meet the Press,” the Louisiana Republican explained that although he was critically wounded back in June by a gunman who attacked the GOP baseball team during a practice in Virginia, he does not believe gun control is the answer.
“Our Founding Fathers believed strongly in gun rights for citizens,” said Scalise.
“Don’t try to put new laws in place that don’t fix these problems,” he continued. “They only make it harder for law-abiding citizens to own a gun.”
Todd then asked the congressman whether the Second Amendment was an “unlimited” right, to which Scalise responded, “It is, it is.” Though he later acknowledged that there are laws on the books limiting 2A rights.
Scalise went on to address the issue of bump stocks, the accessory that was reportedly used in the tragic attack in Las Vegas last Sunday, saying that Congress should step aside and let the ATF re-evaluate whether the bump stock should be the subject of additional regulations.
SEE ALSO: What to Look for When Buying a Can: Going Quiet with SIG’s SRD9
“Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi already said she wants it to be a slippery slope,” he said. “She doesn’t want to stop at bump stocks. They want to go out and limit the rights of gun owners.”
“A week ago… most people didn’t know what a bump stock was,” he added. “So to think that we’re now all experts and know how to write some … panacea law — it’s fallacy. Let’s focus on the facts. Let’s get the facts and let’s go focus on some of the problems.”
To circle back to the question of whether the Second Amendment is unlimited, it’s not. The Supreme Court has said, in the 2008 landmark Heller decision, that while the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right unconnected to militia service it is “not unlimited.”
SCOTUS points to prohibitions on carrying firearms in “sensitive places” like schools or government buildings, laws banning felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms and laws restricting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons, as examples of limitations that passed Constitutional muster over the years.
The question of what arms should and should not be restricted is an ongoing debate. The High Court, for instance, has yet to decide whether state bans on AR-pattern shotguns are constitutional. In recent years it’s shied away from reviewing a case examining that issue — maybe because it doesn’t want to say one way or the other.
I have to agree with Steve Scalise and disagree with the author of the article. The 2nd Amendment does NOT have limitations or exceptions in it. I believe THAT is what Mr. Scalise was referring to when he said it was unlimited. Just because a federal court has made decisions limiting the 2nd, does not mean they were justified in those decisions. The courts are full of overstepping activists, as was clearly shown after Trump was sworn in, and this includes the SCOTUS.
….This Laws and others already exist in the books, all they have to do is start enforcing them!!……We do NOT Need more gun laws!!,….. I, personally think they should start scrapping some that are totally obsolete!!,…
They have expanded these laws to include non-gun infractions of the laws that they have unlawfully added to the books. The 2nd A says the “right to keep and bear SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” and yet our so called lawmakers have indeed done that very thing. They are the ones who truthfully need to learn to read and understand the Constitution of OUR country. The founding fathers may not have had any idea of how weapons would develop in this country, but they DID know how many politicians would try to inhibit any means of the people to defend themselves against being powerless in the face of the politicians greed. They were NEVER intended to serve for life, they were never intended to be in Washington for years on end. They were set up to ONLY meet when something critical to the function of OUR country was needed in order to work through any grievances.
What is so hard to grasp about “shall not be infringed.”? Infringe is defined as “act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.” And synonyms are: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; undermine, erode, diminish, weaken, impair.
This guy should be president