Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/10/2006 1:36:10 PM EDT
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/10/AR2006011001087.html

Full transcript of the 2nd half of today.

Feinstein is fucking unhinged.

Search for "guns" or "machine guns" to find his stuff.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:44:32 PM EDT
Now, you, in United States v. Rybar, agreed with Justice O'Connor in the way that law should be applied relative to intrastate possession of a weapon.

The Lopez case dealt with a congressional act that said that weapons should not be possessed near schools. The court struck that down, saying that that went beyond the commerce clause capability of commerce to legislate in matters of interstate commerce.

In Rybar, what was the issue, you dissented.

By the way, one of the reasons why this case is interesting to me because the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, again, which is my circuit, has subsequently ruled -- and this is not a conservative court in most people's estimation -- recently agreed with your dissent in a case called U.S. v. Stewart (ph), a 2003 case in which the court overturned the defendant's conviction under the very same statute, holding that the law exceeded Congress's commerce powers.

So it seems to me that it would be hard to argue that your position is, per se, unreasonable. But could you describe in your own words?

ALITO: Well, my position in Rybar was really a very modest position. And it did not go to the question of whether Congress can regulate the possession of machine guns.

In fact, I explained in the opinion that it would be easy for Congress to do that in a couple of ways that differed from the way in which it was done in Rybar.

The statute in Rybar was very similar to the statute that was at issue in Lopez. In fact, I think they are the only two federal firearms statutes that have been cast in that mold.

They simply prohibited the possession of firearms without either congressional findings concerning the effect of the activity on interstate commerce or a jurisdictional element.

And I knew from my experience as a federal prosecutor that most of the federal firearms statutes have a jurisdictional element right in the statute. And what that means is that when the prosecutor presents the case in court, the statute that's used most frequently is the statute that makes it a crime for someone who has been convicted of a felony to possess a firearm.

In that case, when the prosecutor presents the case in court, the prosecutor has to show that the defendant has been convicted of a felony and that the firearm in question had some connection with interstate commerce.

Under Supreme Court precedent, a case called Scarborough, all that's necessary is to show that the firearm at some point in its history passed an interstate or foreign commerce: it was manufactured in one state and then later turned up in another state or manufactured in a foreign country and brought to the United States.

From my experience, this was never a practical problem and this was how all the federal firearms statutes had been framed.

ALITO: But for whatever reason, the statute in Lopez and the statute in Rybar were lacking that jurisdictional element.

So an easy way in which Congress could regulate the possession of a machine gun would be to insert a jurisdictional element. And as I just pointed out, in my experience as the U.S. attorney in New Jersey, that was never a practical problem.

The Supreme Court in Lopez said that there were three reasons why there was a problem with the statute there.

And that case had been decided the year before. And it was my obligation, as a lower court judge, to follow it.

The first was that it involved what the court characterized as a noncommercial activity, and that was the possession of a firearm. And, of course, that was the exactly the same activity that was at issue in Rybar.

The second was the absence of a jurisdictional element, and there was no jurisdictional element in either statute.

And the third was the absence of a congressional finding connecting the activity that was being regulated within interstate commerce.

And I pointed out in my opinion that I would have viewed the Rybar case very differently if there had been a congressional finding or if the Justice Department, in presenting its argument to us, had been able to point to anything that showed that there was a substantial effect on interstate commerce, which is what the Supreme Court says is required.

KYL: So this is one of those situations in which, if the result was not was intended, you were willing to point out in your decision what Congress could relatively easily have done to get the result that it appeared that Congress wanted to achieve?

ALITO: That's exactly correct.

KYL: Thank you.

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:49:36 PM EDT
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:53:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 1:59:55 PM EDT by NeedMoreAmmo]

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?



Sure....

Feinswine: You believe in the Constitution??? Oh no.....OMFG!!!

Alito: STFU Bitch...

Feinswine: Ummmpphhgggg...
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:53:51 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeedMoreAmmo:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?



Sure....

Feinswine: You believe in the Constitution!!! OMFG!!!

Alito: STFU Bitch...

Feinswine: Ummmpphhgggg...





Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:57:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NeedMoreAmmo:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?



Sure....

Feinswine: You believe in the Constitution??? OMFG!!!

Alito: STFU Bitch...

Feinswine: Ummmpphhgggg...



You frogot the Oh Noes!!1!!

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 1:59:15 PM EDT
Doesn't look like he intentionally ruled in favor of machineguns to me, it appears that he just told congress and the fed prosecutors they made a mistake which can be corrected by....
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:01:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 2:01:53 PM EDT by BuckeyeRifleman]

Originally Posted By GUNGUY1911:
Doesn't look like he intentionally ruled in favor of machineguns to me, it appears that he just told congress and the fed prosecutors they made a mistake which can be corrected by....



yeah thats kinda how I read it, ofcourse he could(and probably is) just saying that to keep fineswine from flipping out.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:01:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GUNGUY1911:
Doesn't look like he intentionally ruled in favor of machineguns to me, it appears that he just told congress and the fed prosecutors they made a mistake which can be corrected by....



Agreed, but he did affirm that abuse of the Commerce Clause is not likely to fly with him.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:01:42 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:02:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 2:03:20 PM EDT by K2QB3]
Actually that's not what he said at all. (STFU Feinswein)

He said the statute didn't meet the legal standard, but he's perfectly happy to help congress write one that is.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:05:37 PM EDT
So what kind f guns does he own? Anything cool?



That would be my confomation question.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:06:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



Yep.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:08:46 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



+1
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:12:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 2:13:23 PM EDT by HRSGRUNNER]
Aimless is so wise...He's like a little Budda.

That is exactly what he means.

In the oath it probably say's "I will not make waves so help me God".

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:13:22 PM EDT
Read my post at the bottom of the page....

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=426142&page=2

Interstate Commerce will likely fall into some shit after Alito is confirmed because congress will know that he is against certain aspects of it. This means that congress will try to pass "new" laws and amendments to integrate jurisdictional statutes so that they can allow the Federal Government more "legal" power that is currently being abused and thusfar has been relatively uncontested (minus the machine gun case that Alito Judged regarding IC ).

There will be new laws and amendments regarding interstate commerce following Alito.... mark my words !

I hope that these new laws will be shot down. We must stay on our Reps in the following months and years. IC issues are inevitable now.... Alito's confirmation guarantees this !

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:16:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



+1



fun thing is he is right: there is nothing unconstitutional banning machine guns or any other guns through the use of interstate commerce doctrine; after all, how many machine guns that you guys own were actually manufacturered in your state.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:21:57 PM EDT

Originally Posted By HRSGRUNNER:
Aimless is so wise...He's like a little Budda.
That is exactly what he means.

In the oath it probably say's "I will not make waves so help me God".




thats a sig line
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:22:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



I worry about a guy, no matter how conservative, who comes from New Jersey to uphold the 2nd. He has to be somewhat conditioned to the New Jersey line of reasoning on firearms. I mean, he's been exposed to it for so long. I need a guy who foams at the mouth at the mere mention of 2nd Amendment infringement.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:25:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/10/2006 2:26:48 PM EDT by BuckeyeRifleman]

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



+1



fun thing is he is right: there is nothing unconstitutional banning machine guns or any other guns through the use of interstate commerce doctrine; after all, how many machine guns that you guys own were actually manufacturered in your state.



Please go back to DU .

ETA can we get rid of this guy? I have seen him all over numerous threads
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:27:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By bones21:
Read my post at the bottom of the page....

ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=426142&page=2

Interstate Commerce will likely fall into some shit after Alito is confirmed because congress will know that he is against certain aspects of it. This means that congress will try to pass "new" laws and amendments to integrate jurisdictional statutes so that they can allow the Federal Government more "legal" power that is currently being abused and thusfar has been relatively uncontested (minus the machine gun case that Alito Judged regarding IC ).

There will be new laws and amendments regarding interstate commerce following Alito.... mark my words !

I hope that these new laws will be shot down. We must stay on our Reps in the following months and years. IC issues are inevitable now.... Alito's confirmation guarantees this !




Might be an opportunity to attach a repeal of the 86 ban to any new leg that comes up.
CH
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:35:13 PM EDT


The Surpreme Court will NEVER rule on a case concerning the 2nd Amendment and all of the Anti-2nd Amendment laws on the books.


NEVER!


So I wouldn't worry to much about it, if the congress want's it and can get away with it, they'll pass ANY anti-gun laws they can without getting voted out of office. Period.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:35:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GUNGUY1911:
Doesn't look like he intentionally ruled in favor of machineguns to me, it appears that he just told congress and the fed prosecutors they made a mistake which can be corrected by....



+1

What I walked away with...
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:37:18 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



That's how I read it.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:37:44 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



+1



fun thing is he is right: there is nothing unconstitutional banning machine guns or any other guns through the use of interstate commerce doctrine; after all, how many machine guns that you guys own were actually manufacturered in your state.



The interstate commerce clause cannot be used by the congress to usurp power it was never given.

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:41:02 PM EDT
What if he just told them the blatent truth. "I believe the second amendment is an individual right and I will defend it as such".

or even

"The constitution doesnt say a thing about abortion"

What would the dems say?

Oh no!!! He believes in the constitution as invisioned by our founding fathers! Woe!!
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:44:21 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



And Bingo was his Name-o

SG
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:44:28 PM EDT
This display exposes what this whole process is about.

Is a judge going to interpret the law as it was written and intended or twist it to suit what ever case/cause comes before the court.

The Democrats are de facto admitting they want judges that twist the law to suit their political goals.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:47:08 PM EDT
Sure didn't sound optimistic to me.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:50:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 1Andy2:

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



+1



fun thing is he is right: there is nothing unconstitutional banning machine guns or any other guns through the use of interstate commerce doctrine; after all, how many machine guns that you guys own were actually manufacturered in your state.



The interstate commerce clause cannot be used by the congress to usurp power it was never given.




the 2nd amendment protects the rights of individuals to own weapons; however, congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce, and guns are part of interstate commerce unless you are machining your own guns, so therefore, congress does have the right to prohibit the sale and transfer of firearms across state boundaries. The key is that the possession of a firearm is protected by the 2nd amendment; however, the sale or transfer of them is not clearly outlined.

just playing Devil's Advocate here.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 2:57:55 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

the 2nd amendment protects the rights of individuals to own weapons; however, congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce, and guns are part of interstate commerce unless you are machining your own guns, so therefore, congress does have the right to prohibit the sale and transfer of firearms across state boundaries. The key is that the possession of a firearm is protected by the 2nd amendment; however, the sale or transfer of them is not clearly outlined.

just playing Devil's Advocate here.



I hope you know more about medicine than you do about law. Its two entirely separate issues. The Commerce Clause has NOTHING to do with interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In order for any federal gun regulation to be constitutional it must:

(1) come under one of the limited areas of authority granted to the federal government by the people (such as the commerce clause); and

(2) not be prohibited by any other constitutional provision (such as the 2nd Amendment).

Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:01:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

the 2nd amendment protects the rights of individuals to own weapons; however, congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce, and guns are part of interstate commerce unless you are machining your own guns, so therefore, congress does have the right to prohibit the sale and transfer of firearms across state boundaries. The key is that the possession of a firearm is protected by the 2nd amendment; however, the sale or transfer of them is not clearly outlined.

just playing Devil's Advocate here.



I hope you know more about medicine than you do about law. Its two entirely separate issues. The Commerce Clause has NOTHING to do with interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In order for any federal gun regulation to be constitutional it must:

(1) come under one of the limited areas of authority granted to the federal government by the people (such as the commerce clause); and

(2) not be prohibited by any other constitutional provision (such as the 2nd Amendment).




as I said, they cannot ban gun possession or intrastate sale/transfer, but they can ban the interstate transfer and sale of guns due to the commerce clause.

Show me how banning the interstate transfer and sale of arms infringes upon your right to be armed besides making it slightly more difficult to obtain weapons?
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:02:35 PM EDT
The Legistlature and Courts have bastardized the "Commerce Clause of Article 1 Section 8", which reads, " The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;...To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..."

I went back into the Federist Papers #7 and found the following:

The competitions of commerce would be another fruitful source of contention. The States less favorably circumstanced would be desirous of escaping from the disadvantages of local situation, and of sharing in the advantages of their more fortunate neighbors. Each State, or separate confederacy, would pursue a system of commercial policy peculiar to itself. This would occasion distinctions, preferences, and exclusions, which would beget discontent. The habits of intercourse, on the basis of equal privileges, to which we have been accustomed since the earliest settlement of the country, would give a keener edge to those causes of discontent than they would naturally have independent of this circumstance. WE SHOULD BE READY TO DENOMINATE INJURIES THOSE THINGS WHICH WERE IN REALITY THE JUSTIFIABLE ACTS OF INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNTIES CONSULTING A DISTINCT INTEREST. The spirit of enterprise, which characterizes the commercial part of America, has left no occasion of displaying itself unimproved. It is not at all probable that this unbridled spirit would pay much respect to those regulations of trade by which particular States might endeavor to secure exclusive benefits to their own citizens. The infractions of these regulations, on one side, the efforts to prevent and repel them, on the other, would naturally lead to outrages, and these to reprisals and wars.

The opportunities which some States would have of rendering others tributary to them by commercial regulations would be impatiently submitted to by the tributary States. The relative situation of New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey would afford an example of this kind. New York, from the necessities of revenue, must lay duties on her importations. A great part of these duties must be paid by the inhabitants of the two other States in the capacity of consumers of what we import. New York would neither be willing nor able to forego this advantage. Her citizens would not consent that a duty paid by them should be remitted in favor of the citizens of her neighbors; nor would it be practicable, if there were not this impediment in the way, to distinguish the customers in our own markets. Would Connecticut and New Jersey long submit to be taxed by New York for her exclusive benefit? Should we be long permitted to remain in the quiet and undisturbed enjoyment of a metropolis, from the possession of which we derived an advantage so odious to our neighbors, and, in their opinion, so oppressive? Should we be able to preserve it against the incumbent weight of Connecticut on the one side, and the co-operating pressure of New Jersey on the other? These are questions that temerity alone will answer in the affirmative."

My basic read of this is that the various States would be able to through mutual contracts with one another, and/or wink wink nod nod deals, directly benefit the other with acts of their own contracts or commercial endeavors between them. It sounds to me that the Founders recognized this fact and inserted the Commerce Clause so they could disallow the variuos states from undermining one another on the grounds of trade/imports/deals/ etc
.

So, to say that the Federal Government has the authority to regulate all trade, including those of machine guns, between the states based on the commerce clause is flawed at best, and at worst, and what I think is the case, a way for the Feds to control more things they otherwise ought not be able to to get more coin in their coffers.

The following should hot link to this portion of the Federalist Papers.

[link]www.law.ou.edu/hist/federalist/[link/]
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:04:43 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

Originally Posted By Tannim:

Originally Posted By Aimless:

Originally Posted By BuckeyeRifleman:
anyone willing to put that in laymans terms?


"Don't count on me to overturn any anti-gun laws on 2nd amendment grounds. I have no problem with them as long as they are drafted properly."



+1



fun thing is he is right: there is nothing unconstitutional banning machine guns or any other guns through the use of interstate commerce doctrine; after all, how many machine guns that you guys own were actually manufacturered in your state.



If homegrowns were legal there would be no interest in any other type of MG...
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:06:51 PM EDT
CMMG makes Plenty of M16s

and I can use a mill.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:10:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

as I said, they cannot ban gun possession or intrastate sale/transfer, but they can ban the interstate transfer and sale of guns due to the commerce clause.

Show me how banning the interstate transfer and sale of arms infringes upon your right to be armed besides making it slightly more difficult to obtain weapons?



You can't just do an end-run around Constitutional rights like that. When any law infringes upon a fundamental right, the Court's generally apply strict scrutiny:


To pass strict scrutiny, the law or policy must first be justified by a "compelling governmental interest," and second must be the "least restrictive means" for achieving that interest. Many legal scholars, including judges and professors, often say that strict scrutiny is "strict in theory, fatal in fact," because most laws are struck that are subject to that highest standard. The exception is the Supreme Court's widely criticized opinion in Korematsu v. United States, upholding as constitutional the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Now the Supreme Court hasn't yet stated whether strict scrutiny does apply to the 2nd, but that's because it hasn't dealt with a 2nd Amendment case since 1939, and Miller was decided on non-Constitutional grounds. But logically strict scrutiny should apply as it does to the 1st, 4th, 5th, and all other important Amendments. Therefore Congress cannot do anything which would infringe upon the 2nd Amendment. A law that uses interstate commerce to regulate machine guns to the point of banning them entirely would need to pass the strict scrutiny standard. Like I said, two separate questions, and the mere fact that something can come under the Commerce power doesn't mean it can infringe upon the BoR.
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:31:53 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:
This display exposes what this whole process is about.

Is a judge going to interpret the law as it was written and intended or twist it to suit what ever case/cause comes before the court.

The Democrats are de facto admitting they want judges that twist the law to suit their political goals.




NO, THIS IS THE PROBLEM! TO DETERMINE IF A LAW PASSED BY CONGRESS AND SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT IS CONSTITUTIONAL, NOT TO INTERPRET THE CONSTITUTION TO FIT THEIR NEEDS!
Link Posted: 1/10/2006 3:37:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

Originally Posted By happycynic:

Originally Posted By PreMed_Gunner:

the 2nd amendment protects the rights of individuals to own weapons; however, congress does have the right to regulate interstate commerce, and guns are part of interstate commerce unless you are machining your own guns, so therefore, congress does have the right to prohibit the sale and transfer of firearms across state boundaries. The key is that the possession of a firearm is protected by the 2nd amendment; however, the sale or transfer of them is not clearly outlined.

just playing Devil's Advocate here.



I hope you know more about medicine than you do about law. Its two entirely separate issues. The Commerce Clause has NOTHING to do with interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. In order for any federal gun regulation to be constitutional it must:

(1) come under one of the limited areas of authority granted to the federal government by the people (such as the commerce clause); and

(2) not be prohibited by any other constitutional provision (such as the 2nd Amendment).




as I said, they cannot ban gun possession or intrastate sale/transfer, but they can ban the interstate transfer and sale of guns due to the commerce clause.

Show me how banning the interstate transfer and sale of arms infringes upon your right to be armed besides making it slightly more difficult to obtain weapons?



The same way banning weed through taxation was found to be illegal. You cannot make someone commite a crime to legaly pay the tax. Preventing someone from obtaining something is the same as banning the item outright. In the case of weed there is no Constitutional protection, but there is for firearms.

Also interstate commerce is to broad a term for anything. The simple fact that I am buying something in my own state effects other states that could otherwise get the money.
Top Top