A Gem from Heller

Texas Law Shield notes that a favorite argument of anti-gun types is silly, and we would like to engage Antonin Scalia to tell you why.

Anti-gunners say Constitutional protection of the right to keep and bear arms should only cover firearms available at the time of the drafting of the Constitution — such as muzzle-loading rifles and pistols.

What they don’t know, or choose to ignore, is that this point has already been refuted in the landmark Heller Supreme Court decision. From Justice Scalia’s majority opinion:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

If you’re able to use this gem in a discussion about gun prohibitions, please come back and tell us about it in the comments section below.