I know what the Constitution says about guns, but I am personally opposed (though resigned) to their very existence. Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito seems to believe they are vitally important to our nation. This is from an email I received today:
Judge Alito has shown a dangerous hostility to strong federal gun laws.
In a case involving the illegal sale of machine guns at gun shows, Judge Alito concluded that the federal machine gun ban is an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power. If Alito’s extreme view prevailed at the Supreme Court, federal gun laws that protect our families could be placed in jeopardy. Possession of machine guns, which fire continuously with one pull of the trigger and can discharge hundreds of rounds in seconds, would no longer be a federal crime.
For this reason, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence has announced its first-ever opposition to a Supreme Court candidate and has urged the Senate to reject Alito’s nomination. Please join us in opposing the confirmation of Judge Alito.
In the case of U.S. v. Rybar, gun dealer Raymond Rybar, Jr. attended a gun show in Pennsylvania and sold a fully automatic Chinese Type 54, 7.62-mm submachine gun and a U.S. Military M-3 .45 caliber submachine gun. Rybar was prosecuted for violating federal law, which barred his possession of machine guns. Rybar pled guilty, but argued that he should be set free because the federal machine gun ban is unconstitutional. In a 2-1 ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the federal ban on machine gun possession was constitutional.
Judge Alito cast the dissenting vote, stating that the machine gun ban was an unconstitutional “novel law.”
Dismissing years of Congressional findings on the impact of illegal guns and criminal gun violence, Alito demanded that Congress and the President “assemble[] empirical evidence” for him to review in order to “protect our system of constitutional federalism.”
In Judge Alito’s view, if Congress provided him with such “empirical evidence,” that “might” be sufficient to persuade him to uphold the law. Alito also argued that Congress may not even have the power to regulate “the simple possession of a firearm,” as this “is not ‘economic’ or ‘commercial’ activity….” If Alito’s view became the law, it could place other federal restrictions on gun possession in similar jeopardy.
Alito’s dissent was sharply criticized by the other judges in the Rybar case as having “no authority” in the law. The majority stressed that Judge Alito’s attempt to create new hurdles for Congress and the President tramples “a basic tenet of the constitutional separation of powers.”
Even conservative Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, in an interview on Meet the Press, agreed that Alito’s dissent represented improper judicial activism. Coburn stated, “Those aren’t decisions judges should be making. Those are decisions legislators should be making. And that’s how we’ve gotten off on this track is, that we allow judges to start deciding the law….” Senator Coburn went on to state that Alito’s Rybar opinion was “wrong” and amounted to “legislating” from the bench.
Judge Alito is a dangerous example of a judicial activist — twisting the law to fit his personal views. Alito’s nomination poses a threat to our nation’s gun laws and the public’s safety.
StoptheNRA.com offers an email letter to your senators here to express your opposition to Alito’s views on the second amendment.
that Mr. Coburn will reiterate this concern during the confirmation hearings, and vote against Mr. Alito.
I try to never assume, but always hope. I will be reminding the senator of his statements frequently. Join me: contact Coburn
Thanks, Alice. Important to know …
I guess that when you’re a paranoid wingnut, having a machine gun is important. You never know when a terrorist or some damned commie will come your way.
I guess Alito thinks that the framers didn’t really mean it when they put in that “well-regulated” phrase. I mean, if you can’t “regulate” machine guns what can you “regulate”?
ianal – much less a constitutional scholar – but if anyone more well-informed is reading, what do these “strict constructionists” say when you ask them, “What did the framers intend when they inserted the phrase ‘well-regulated’ into the 2nd amendment?”
Well, I got one wingnut e-mail that essentially disposed of the two parts of the 2nd amendment by saying that they were disconnected, and not intended to be linking except for convenience! Maybe they thought it would save paper!
I’ve seen better stuff acknowledging that at the time the Constitution was written, states differed greatly in how they dealt with gun ownership, especially as guns were needed for defense in many parts of the new territories, for hunting, etc. And, the states were defended by militias, not by a country-wide standing army as such. States did not arm their militias, they depended pretty much on militia members owning and using their own weapons. I think in some areas, householders may have been expected/required to have a weapon for defense. So. . . they wanted to avoid some despotic situation where gun ownership would be forbidden, thereby making state militias toothless. Such a move would also have put people in more remote areas at risk. The second amendment is the result, and various forms were bandied about before this one was raised up for approval.
Obviously, now, the state and national situation is quite different.
Hmm. I wonder if Mr. Hays, my old Constitutional history prof, were he alive today, would downrate me for talking way way outside my expertise??? Sorry. I’ve loved the Constitution since I had to pass a test on it in the 8th grade, thanks to the Missouri legislature.
That was also my understanding of the history. Having known two people killed with guns, and the senseless level of gun slaughter in general in our country, I’m not that fond of them. Still, I can see that a totally disarmed population would be vulnerable to tyranny, so that far I’m understanding the pro-2nd amendment arguments.
What I have trouble with is the continuing drive to render background checks meaningless or impossible, and legalizing ALL types of guns for use by just anyone. So that a violent felon with a meth addiction and a history of mental problems can walk into a gun show and walk out with a machine gun. It sounds like that’s what some of the nuttiest of the NRA types want, and that Alito would enable. What I don’t get is how a “strict constructionist” squares that with the “well-regulated” phrase wrt “militias” in the actual wording of the 2nd amendment.
And of course, anyone nominated and supported by the right has to be a “strict constructionist,” yes? God, there are just so many reasons to be appalled by that man . . . Alito, I mean, of course.
Hopeful signs from kos: Alito lacks support and Armando: RW Blogs Silent On ScAlito’s Extreme View of Presidential Executive Power.