You're watching...
FNC legal analyst Peter Johnson, Jr. on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s comments on the Second Amendment and gun control.
Also in this playlist...
Auto-advance: ON
Auto-advance
This transcript is automatically generated
The debate over gun control escalating tonight President Obama.
We'll quote -- value way it.
The new legislation that seeks to ban online sales of ammunition this after Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia this week seem to advocate it.
Gun control laws joining us now is Peter Johnson jury trial public to -- Fox News legal analyst.
Peter -- you watch the interview with Chris -- -- it was to meet fascinating.
But at the same time a bit compounding is seemed the justice seemed as if he were in binding restrictions on the second -- I think he invites debate and he invites controversy.
Blew in some ways.
If you look at is Heller decision low end 2008.
And then McDonnell decision after that.
It makes it clear that he's a proponent.
The strongest proponent.
Our Washington DC.
McDonnell Chicago right lifting -- what were expensive bans on hand right on playing the Second Amendment counts in this country in the constitution.
Does count it does -- those decisions points to restrictions.
On guns in this country.
And it points to mentally ill people people convicted of crimes certain place restrictions and terms of schools.
And the like.
And so a lot of people got concerned when they heard the justice talk about.
What -- call eight court this concept them off writing about people carry around axes but with okay.
-- what -- believe that you Justice Scalia.
And it's it's fun to watch -- -- -- space from the white guys are very few people wonder about but the -- Chris Rose I think -- and his were rial.
For example said the justice there was a network called off -- -- Friday off.
Which if you carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people like I had -- -- some think that was I believe a missed -- Williamson interesting thing he raises that because.
This notion of are fighting there's a law in North Carolina.
That's similar to that saying that you can cause terror now.
By carrying a handgun.
In the open.
But the conflict is in that states.
There is an open carry law right so you can go to jail for doing something.
That is legal.
That's the problem of gun control in this current production you go to jail in North Carolina or is it the -- and -- civil law well you could argue with the Supreme Court justice I will most respectfully.
I bet it I he may have referring to it as a civil wrong as -- tort or an earlier meaning of the tort.
It's not a personal injury claim it would actually be something that you could be arrested with you know.
Having so I can imagine thousands upon thousands of personal injury attorneys out there are salivating at the they are they got the I think entry that the justice had offered them for I I don't I think what the justice was saying is that the there can be restrictions and terms of guns in this country and there are certain things that have not come before the court.
That a lot of these organizations.
Are trying to bring before it the court in terms of -- That's been a weapon.
Against firearms in in the in this country I represented.
A portion of the gun industry.
-- claims a wrongful death in class action claims trying to close Canada and history and we were successful.
Are very successful and in in fact creating if you will firewall around the industry that.
A lot of people thought were never people who -- there was the law was wrong and and is the justice wrong here in suggesting that there is him in the clear incubation.
-- by Justice Scalia is that there is the Second Amendment.
And it's simply awaits created an inventive legal minds.
To put together limitations on those rights at the state level.
I think he's made it clear that he believes the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment incorporates the Second Amendment.
I think what he's also saying is that he's a true constitutional.
That it should be based on the standards.
That were in effect of the time of the founders.
And of the drafters of the constitution.
And that is the standard.
By which it will be judged.
And he he brings.
Strict interpretation if you will get traditionalist.
To text -- Original list.
And if we can get more nuanced or more focused.
I can't imagine how.
Because I'm not quite sure how we bring together incorporated and and I and we'll get out of the weeds -- promise sure please.
Well give us some of the read -- it would get a -- -- -- it's a good because it.
The fact of the matter is that we have a constitution and right that is that seems straightforward.
It is straightforward and and the problem though that you're exposing -- the justice's.
Remarks is that it will be twisted.
Because just as you talked about.
Banning online and the nation the arguments will be made all there was no online.
At the founding of this country it was -- there was no extended clip.
But the founding this constitution and therefore it's not protect them the Second Amendment the debate goes on he's added to it in ways of people than expected at this point.
It's interesting you brought up report and they huge issues expert get twisted because -- -- go to twisted.
To tort.
To torture.
The autumn Hologic its interest thing perhaps is that as we divert to the -- to the what's one more time thanks for eliminating a base credit from always like news.
It -- and thanks so much and other words.
Stay vigilant on the Second Amendment that's true up next.
