BRADY CENTER ANNOUNCES OPPOSITION TO NOMINATION OF JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO TO US SUPREME COURT


Alito’s Judicial Activism In Machine Gun Case Prompts Brady Center’s First-Ever Opposition to Supreme Court Nominee
For Immediate Release:
12-20-2005 Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319
Washington DC - The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced today that it is opposing the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.  This is the first time the Brady Center has opposed a Supreme Court nomination.

Judge Alito’s nomination poses 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).  In that case, Judge Alito argued that the federal machine gun ban amounted to 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 dissent were to be adopted by the Supreme Court, it would place in jeopardy the ability of Congress to protect the public from gun violence.

Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, remarked, “Judge Alito’s conclusion that the federal machine gun ban is unconstitutional is right-wing judicial activism at its worst.  He demonstrated no respect for the judgment of Congress in seeking to protect the public from the grave dangers of fully automatic weapons.”

In addition to being the dissenting view in the Third Circuit, Judge Alito’s conclusion that the machine gun ban violates the Commerce Clause is so far out of the mainstream of Constitutional jurisprudence that it has been rejected by every other federal appellate court that has considered the issue, including the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court has been asked to review lower court decisions upholding the ban six times and has declined in each case.  In June 2005, the Supreme Court issued its latest ruling on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich, rejecting the theory advanced in Judge Alito’s Rybar dissent.  Six Justices, including Justice Scalia, sustained the application of federal drug laws to intrastate medical marijuana use.  Based on this ruling, the Supreme Court vacated a 2-1 ruling in the Ninth Circuit that had declared the machine gun ban to be unconstitutional.

Senators have expressed concerns about Judge Alito’s judicial activism in the Rybar case, including Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.  In a November 6, 2005, interview on Meet the Press, Senator Coburn was asked about Alito’s dissent in Rybar, and Coburn agreed with the Brady Center that it 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.

In the Rybar case, Raymond Rybar, Jr., a federally licensed gun dealer, attended a gun show in Monroeville, Pennsylvania on April 4, 1992.  He possessed a fully automatic Chinese Type 54, 7.62-millimeter submachine gun, which he sold to Thomas Baublitz.  The next day Rybar returned to the gun show and sold Baublitz another fully automatic firearm, a U.S. Military M-3, .45 caliber submachine gun.  The guns were sold for a total of $600.  Rybar pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully possessing a machine gun, with the condition that he be allowed to appeal to allege that the federal machine gun possession restrictions were unconstitutional.  If Judge Alito had prevailed in the Rybar case, Raymond Rybar, Jr. would have been set free.

Machine guns are fully automatic weapons that have been heavily regulated since 1934. They fire continuously with one pull of the trigger and can discharge hundreds of rounds in seconds.  In 1986, President Reagan signed a federal law banning the manufacture of machine guns for the civilian market and banning the transfer and possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986.  These “grandfathered” machine guns remain subject to strict registration, possession, transfer, and taxation requirements.  


# # #

As the nation's largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organizations leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities.

If the Brady Bunch are that dead set against him, them I'm for him.  

If I wanted their opinion, I'd BEAT IT OUT OF THEM

Quoted: In that case, Judge Alito argued that the federal machine gun ban amounted to an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

sounds like the type of guy we need on the supreme court, one who won't compromise the bill of rights due to political pressure

Alito is on Arfcom' side.

Quoted: Alito is on Arfcom' side.

ARFCOM is on Alitos side

Quoted: Quoted: Alito is on Arfcom' side. ARFCOM is on Alitos side

I would hope!

Earth to Brady Bunch...No one's listening!

The lines are already drawn on Alito, and gun control is not going to be an issue.

Everybody should practice good gun control.

Dear Brady Bunch,
Thanks for eliminating any doubts I may have had about this candidate, who thanks to you, now appears to be supremely well qualified.
Hugs and Kisses,
giacutter

All Right! The title tells me everything I need to know.

Looking at this in a little more detail, it's both encouraging and troubling. Encouraging because Alito might just rule that the Feds can't legislate everything under the sun just because it has some vague relationship to interstate commerce. Troubling because the MG ban should be overturned on Second amendment grounds, though he may not have been in a position to make such a ruling on this case.

I was going to send them an email thanking them to remind me to call my congressmen in support of Alito...  but they don't even have email!  

I guess they got tired of all the love mail they were getting.  You can shell out $ for a stamp or long distance call, though.  

Slimey Butt fXXkers.

"Machine-Gun Sammy"? Say it ain't so!!!

Well heck, now I like him.

The only issue being discussed about Alito is abortion.  Nothing else matters to the MSM.  The Brady Bunch can shout until their lungs bleed, no one will listen to them.  It'll go something like this:

BB:  "He wants machine guns and bazookas in preschools!!"
MSM:  "What does that have to do with abortion?"
BB: "Um, nothing.  Why?"
MSM: "Why are you wasting my time then?!"
*click*

The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality.

Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime.

Quoted: Quoted: Alito is on Arfcom' side. ARFCOM is on Alitos side

Alito and ARFCOM are both on the side of the constitution.  

Quoted: The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality. Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime.

...and if you want to lower the crime rate, raise the number of black babies being aborted...

Quoted: Quoted: The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality. Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime. ...and if you want to lower the crime rate, raise the number of black babies being aborted...

Quoted: If I wanted their opinion, I'd BEAT IT OUT OF THEM

I agree completely.  


 

Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, remarked, “Judge Alito’s conclusion that the federal machine gun ban is unconstitutional is right-wing judicial activism at its worst. He demonstrated no respect for the judgment of Congress in seeking to protect the public from the grave dangers of fully automatic weapons.”

Yeah, fuck you Dickhead. How about Congress' utter contempt for the Second Amendment and the founding fathers by passing the NFA in the first place?

I know. Let's take away all the guns just to make everyone safe. What a dumbass.

Quoted: As the nation's largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organizations leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence...

Quoted: Quoted: The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality. Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime. ...and if you want to lower the crime rate, raise the number of black babies being aborted...

Shoot, if we started aborting every pregnancy the crime rate would drop to 0 in just one generation!

Quoted: If the Brady Bunch are that dead set against him, them I'm for him.

+1

Quoted: BRADY CENTER ANNOUNCES OPPOSITION TO NOMINATION OF JUDGE SAMUEL ALITO TO US SUPREME COURT Alito’s Judicial Activism In Machine Gun Case Prompts Brady Center’s First-Ever Opposition to Supreme Court Nominee For Immediate Release: 12-20-2005 Contact Communications: (202) 289-7319 Washington DC - The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence announced today that it is opposing the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.  This is the first time the Brady Center has opposed a Supreme Court nomination. Judge Alito’s nomination poses 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).  In that case, Judge Alito argued that the federal machine gun ban amounted to 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 dissent were to be adopted by the Supreme Court, it would place in jeopardy the ability of Congress to protect the public from gun violence. Dennis Henigan, Director of the Brady Center’s Legal Action Project, remarked, “Judge Alito’s conclusion that the federal machine gun ban is unconstitutional is right-wing judicial activism at its worst.  He demonstrated no respect for the judgment of Congress in seeking to protect the public from the grave dangers of fully automatic weapons.” In addition to being the dissenting view in the Third Circuit, Judge Alito’s conclusion that the machine gun ban violates the Commerce Clause is so far out of the mainstream of Constitutional jurisprudence that it has been rejected by every other federal appellate court that has considered the issue, including the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits. The Supreme Court has been asked to review lower court decisions upholding the ban six times and has declined in each case.  In June 2005, the Supreme Court issued its latest ruling on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich, rejecting the theory advanced in Judge Alito’s Rybar dissent.  Six Justices, including Justice Scalia, sustained the application of federal drug laws to intrastate medical marijuana use.  Based on this ruling, the Supreme Court vacated a 2-1 ruling in the Ninth Circuit that had declared the machine gun ban to be unconstitutional. Senators have expressed concerns about Judge Alito’s judicial activism in the Rybar case, including Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma.  In a November 6, 2005, interview on Meet the Press, Senator Coburn was asked about Alito’s dissent in Rybar, and Coburn agreed with the Brady Center that it 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. In the Rybar case, Raymond Rybar, Jr., a federally licensed gun dealer, attended a gun show in Monroeville, Pennsylvania on April 4, 1992.  He possessed a fully automatic Chinese Type 54, 7.62-millimeter submachine gun, which he sold to Thomas Baublitz.  The next day Rybar returned to the gun show and sold Baublitz another fully automatic firearm, a U.S. Military M-3, .45 caliber submachine gun.  The guns were sold for a total of $600.  Rybar pleaded guilty to two counts of unlawfully possessing a machine gun, with the condition that he be allowed to appeal to allege that the federal machine gun possession restrictions were unconstitutional.  If Judge Alito had prevailed in the Rybar case, Raymond Rybar, Jr. would have been set free. Machine guns are fully automatic weapons that have been heavily regulated since 1934. They fire continuously with one pull of the trigger and can discharge hundreds of rounds in seconds.  In 1986, President Reagan signed a federal law banning the manufacture of machine guns for the civilian market and banning the transfer and possession of machine guns not lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986.  These “grandfathered” machine guns remain subject to strict registration, possession, transfer, and taxation requirements.   # # # As the nation's largest national, non-partisan, grassroots organizations leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence is dedicated to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in their communities.

I cannot think of a better reason to like Alito than this.   Text of the dissenting opinion?  Where?

He has my support

Quoted: Quoted: The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality. Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime. ...and if you want to lower the crime rate, raise the number of black babies from poor households being aborted...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality. Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime. ...and if you want to lower the crime rate, raise the number of black babies being aborted...

I hate to agree but statisticly speaking he is right.  Just analyze ethnicity in relation to violent crime.

never said he wasn't, but he's still a troooooolllllllll......

Quoted: Quoted: The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality. Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime. ...and if you want to lower the crime rate, raise the number of black babies being aborted...

FOUND ONE!!
Edit: No really, I'm not racist. I truly despise everyone, no matter their color!

Quoted: All Right! The title tells me everything I need to know. Looking at this in a little more detail, it's both encouraging and troubling. Encouraging because Alito might just rule that the Feds can't legislate everything under the sun just because it has some vague relationship to interstate commerce. Troubling because the MG ban should be overturned on Second amendment grounds, though he may not have been in a position to make such a ruling on this case.

This Commerce Clause crap is the basis for most Federal gun legislation.  I'd like to see the scope of the Commerce Clause narrowed significantly.  With a narrowed definition of what "regulating interstate commerce" entails, we could get rid of the GCA.

There was no argument made to overturn the MG ban based on the 2A.  He can't form an opinion based on evidence that was not introduced in that particular case.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The Bradys are completely out of touch with reality. Lawfully owned automatic weapons are totally unrelated to crime. ...and if you want to lower the crime rate, raise the number of black babies being aborted... Shoot, if we started aborting every pregnancy the crime rate would drop to 0 in just one generation!

Nope, gotta consider all the illegals.  They are most of the criminals anyways.

-Ben