Anti gun assault on Alito begins
Judge Samuel A. Alito’s judicial views pose serious dangers to the safety of our communities, our families, and our children, as evidenced by his troubling dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996). For this reason, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced its opposition to Judge Alito’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court last month. (It is the first time in its history that the Brady Center has opposed a Supreme Court nomination.)
In the Rybar case, Judge Alito concluded that the federal machine gun ban is an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. Alito attempted to erect arbitrary hurdles to Congressional efforts to reduce the availability of machine guns to the criminal element. In unusually harsh language, the Rybar majority criticized Alito’s dissent as having “no authority” in the law and “run(ning) counter to the deference that the judiciary owes to its two coordinate branches of government….”
If Judge Alito’s view had prevailed, the federal ban on machine gun possession would have been struck down. Apart from the fact that Judge Alito’s position in Rybar was legally indefensible, it also is fair to ask: If Alito’s view had prevailed in the federal courts, what would have been the real world consequences for the American people?
Arbitrary hurdles like the commerce clause? Morons. They then list a bunch of cases where machine guns were used in crime. Don’t they know shooting people is illegal. And the guns in those cases were illegal as well. Too bad the Bradies spent so much time obfuscating supposed assault weapons and machine guns.
A gun-control activist and author of the now-expired ban on assault weapons, Feinstein singled out a case in which Alito argued in a 3rd Circuit dissent that a federal ban on machine guns was unconstitutional. Feinstein said she is concerned that that opinion “demonstrates a willingness to strike down laws with which you personally may disagree by employing a narrow reading of Congress’ constitutional authority to enact legislation.”
Narrow reading? That’s quite laughable since congress has widened the commerce clause to encapsulate everything.