Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Judge Tosses California Ammunition Purchase Law [View all]friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)26. IMO, Scalia's decision in D.C. v Heller was one of his few 'stopped clock' moments.
I generally found Scalia to be reactionary at best, and if not an actual crypto-facist, at least "fascist adjacent"
Approval of an action by a person does not imply a character reference for that person-
at least for those not fond of ad hominem arguments...
A question for you:
Do you reject the USSC holding in United States v Jones merely because Scalia wrote it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that installing a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on a vehicle and using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
In 2004 defendant Jones was suspected of drug trafficking. Police investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of the defendant's car but then exceeded the warrant's scope in both geography and length of time. The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that this was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, although they were split 5-4 as to the fundamental reasons behind that conclusion. The majority held that by physically installing the GPS device on the defendant's car, the police had committed a trespass against Jones' "personal effects" this trespass, in an attempt to obtain information, constituted a search per se...
In 2004 defendant Jones was suspected of drug trafficking. Police investigators asked for and received a warrant to attach a GPS tracking device to the underside of the defendant's car but then exceeded the warrant's scope in both geography and length of time. The Supreme Court justices voted unanimously that this was a "search" under the Fourth Amendment, although they were split 5-4 as to the fundamental reasons behind that conclusion. The majority held that by physically installing the GPS device on the defendant's car, the police had committed a trespass against Jones' "personal effects" this trespass, in an attempt to obtain information, constituted a search per se...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones#Majority_opinion
Justice Antonin Scalia authored the majority opinion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
28 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations

Feh- that was also the meme used to sell Proposition 8- 'preventing societal harm'
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#4
That fact that a Constitutional right is unpopular in certain polities doesn't make it non-existant
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#9
Your use of the phrase "correctly interpreted" spoke Loudly to me, so I did a little research
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#15
Winkling out deceit is hardly bullying, and I own no guns. Try again...
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#22
So without the violation of rights 16% of the time, would the law be acceptable?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Apr 2020
#28
Try again- this bit of performative security theater inconvenienced *everybody*...
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#3
Your defense of this security theater is sincere, but misplaced for these reasons:
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#10
Lots of things have been restricted for ostensibly being 'dangerous to public safety'
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#13
Unless and until it is repealed, the Second Amendment exists, and is law
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#16
How about "Roe v Wade said it, I believe it, that settles it!"? That work for you?
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#18
In the meantime, I suggest California gun owners minimize the effect of this law by...
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#19
IMO, Scalia's decision in D.C. v Heller was one of his few 'stopped clock' moments.
friendly_iconoclast
Apr 2020
#26