Jon Stewart illustrates Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s irrational thought process
Jon Stewart did a great job in illustrating the warped thinking of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia today. He used the Bruce James Abramski case to ridicule Scalia.
Abramski purchased a gun for his uncle three days after the uncle wrote him a check. The memo line of the $400 check had the statement “Glock 19 handgun.” Bruce James Abramski checked the box stating he was the buyer. Abramski was later arrested for making false statements about a purchased of a gun. The Supreme Court voted 5 to 4 upholding the law under which Abramski was arrested.
Jon Stewart first showed snippets of the Firearms Transaction Record that clearly states that only the actual buyer could take possession of the gun. It also clearly states that it is a felony to misrepresent one’s self on the form.
Jon Stewart ridiculed Justice Antonin Scalia’s rational for dissenting. Scalia asserted that if a gun buyer steps outside and sell his gun immediately, presumably for a profit, it should not be illegal. Scalia characterizes a transaction as follows.
As soon as I buy it, I walk out of the store I meet this guy in the parking lot. He says, ‘Hey, that’s a nifty looking gun there. Ah – how much did you pay for it?’ He says, ‘You know, I paid six hundred dollars, I’ll give ya seven hundred. It’s yours.’ Right? I can hand it to him, can’t I?’
“There apparently is no prohibition,” Jon Stewart said. “of transferring the gun after you buy it. So what is your point Scalia?” Stewart went on to play a clip where Scalia implies that the law made no sense because anyone who wants a gun can get their hands on one. Is he blind to the fact that as these laws are enforced less guns would be out there?
Jon Stewart then illustrated the big loophole in the gun control laws. One must get background checks in stores but no background checks required for personal sales.
LIKE My Facebook Page – Visit My Blog: EgbertoWillies.com
Follow @EgbertoWillies
Viewers are encouraged to subscribe and join the conversation for more insightful commentary and to support progressive messages. Together, we can populate the internet with progressive messages that represent the true aspirations of most Americans.
It is the same faulty logic that has lead to the misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. We the people in the Preamble has the same meaning as “the right of the people” in the Second Amendment. It means collectively. Collectively we the people established the Constitution of the United States and collectively we formed well regulated militias. Arming those militias can not be infringed. The British march to Concord was to destroy the stored arms of the militia. The individual right to bear arms falls to the states constitutions to address. The Bill of Right is not a barrier against public regulation of rights but a guarantee that if the state acted it must be lawfully following Due Process.