Justice Scalia and Guns.

After Scalia passed away I looked into some of his more interesting ideas on what the Constitution says.  In the case of Guns, he said that they had to be hand carried.  Scalia based this in the second amendment saying that we have the right to keep and bear arms.  In other words they must be man portable and able to fit in one's home.  As such he rejected the idea that Americans can own something like a cannon due to it not being able to be hand carried (though this is changing with future technology).   However, he said things like rocket propelled grenades and other recoilless weapons that could potentially take out an airplane or even a tank where not known to be protected or not under the second amendment.  He said he looked forward to such a discussion.  However, the fact that our weapons rights are limited to hand carried weapons in Scalia's opinion shows something of Scalia's conservatism and jurisprudence.  It was that he was a textualist.  Therefore if the Constitution did not specify something more substantial than a rifle or that cannot be hand carried, then it was not a part of the people's right to keep and bear arms.  I personally believe that he potentially would have ruled that RPG's and similar weapons were legal, but with restrictions.  With respect to guns as a whole, I personally think there are no true restrictions on what weapons can be owned so long as you use them to defend your family and your country, but that's just my two cents.   

Final Thought:  Scalia was an interesting man, and for people who love political science and enjoy politics, whether you agree with him or not, he was someone to be listened to and even admired.  Thank you justice Scalia for your service, I hope your successor is as excellent as you.