In Alito's dream world, anyone (ANYONE) would be able to buy a machine gun

[Craig3410]

Next week, the U.S. Senate begins hearings on Judge Samuel Alito's lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. 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.

--from StoptheNRA.com

[Massacure]

1. I stopped reading after the second paragraph.

When it said machine guns could fire "hundreds of rounds per second."

Who wrote this article, a seven year old? :rofl:

Btw, just for clarification, I don't think everyone should be able to own machine guns, but people need to check the credibility of their articles before they post.

[philarq]

2. Maybe he'll overturn the Harrison Act.

And I can smoke a little opium while I shoot up the neighbors house with my machine gun.

[davepc]

3. If I remember correctly...

Rybars argument was that the machine guns he sold never left the state of Pennsylvania and the transaction was intra-state and therefore couldn't be considered interstate commerce. Since the Constitution only gives Congress the ability to regulate interstate commerce, and not commerce that does not cross state lines, Ronald Regans 1986 ban on the transfer and possession of certain firearms was unconstitutional.

Rybar lost the case. Alito agreed with his argument in a dissenting opinion.

A similar argument was brought before the court in Gonzales v. Raich, this time the prohibited item in question was marijuana, not a firearm, and Justice Scalia said that interstate commerce was whatever congress decided commerce was, and that the fact nothing actually crossed state lines was irrelevant.


So Alito disagrees with Scalia on how much power congress has to regulate commerce that takes place in the states.

Oh, I disagree with the OP topic title. Even if Rybars argument was upheld by the court, it only would of invalidated Ronald Regans 1986 Machine gun "ban" and would not have invalidated the 1934 National Firearms Act or the 1968 Gun Control Act. So "anyone" would not magically be allowed to own a Machine gun, as those two laws place limits on who may posses firearms. (Mainly those two federal laws prohibit felons and people who are mentally deficient from possessing guns)

edit: typo, added a section

[SPKrazy]

4. Who knows, we might need machine guns when the neoconazis

take full control of everything?:sarcasm: :dunce:

[1620rock]

5. Yes, we just might...

...need machine guns...I am a liberal pacifist, and I am armed to the teeth. :wow: