Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/11/2006 3:39:12 PM EDT
ALITO MISLEADS COMMITTEE ON U.S. GUN LAWS
For Immediate Release:
01-10-2006 Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319
Washington, D.C. - In an exchange with Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), Judge Samuel Alito, in defending his dissent in U.S. v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3rd Cir. 1996), mislead the Senate Judiciary Committee about the content and history of federal gun laws. In his Rybar opinion, Judge Alito wrote that the federal machine gun ban amounted to an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause.

Judge Alito wrongly suggested to the Committee that the machine gun ban is indistinguishable from the statute struck down in U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). The Gun-Free School Zones Act at issue in Lopez banned possession of guns in a particular place; i.e. at or near a school. The machine gun ban, by contrast, prohibits possession of fully automatic weapons in any location.

Moreover, Judge Alito went far beyond the limited holding in Lopez, and indeed his view in Rybar has been repudiated by the Supreme Court. In June 2005, the Supreme Court issued its latest ruling on Congressional power under the Commerce Clause in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S.Ct. 2195 (2005), 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 case of U.S. v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003), that had declared the machine gun ban to be unconstitutional. In his exchange with Judge Alito, Senator Kyl cited the Stewart decision, without noting that it had been vacated by the Supreme Court. Judge Alito’s conclusion that the machine gun ban violates the Commerce Clause has now been rejected by every circuit to consider the issue: the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits.

Judge Alito also falsely suggested that the federal machine gun ban and Gun-Free School Zones Act were unique among federal firearms laws because they lack a “jurisdictional element,” requiring that prosecutors show that a machine gun had traveled in interstate commerce.

Other federal firearms laws critical to public safety also lack a jurisdictional element. These include 18 U.S.C. § 922(p), which prohibits possession of undetectable firearms manufactured after the date of enactment in 1988, and 18 U.S.C. § 922(x), which generally prohibits possession of handguns by juveniles. Judge Alito’s comments suggest that he would also strike down federal laws prohibiting undetectable firearms and possession of handguns by juveniles.

Contrary to Judge Alito’s suggestion, the courts have never required that Congress include a jurisdictional element in federal firearm laws. As the majority in Rybar noted, “We have rejected the argument that Lopez requires federal criminal statutes to contain a jurisdictional element.” Rybar at 284, quoting U.S. v. Kenney, 91 F.3d 884, 887 (7th Cir. 1996).
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:40:54 PM EDT
She and her ilk will stoop to any level and employ any lie or falsehood to advance her radical anti agenda
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:41:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:43:14 PM EDT
*yawn*
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:43:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:

...

The machine gun ban, by contrast, prohibits possession of fully automatic weapons in any location.



Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:46:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 3:46:41 PM EDT by CRC]
Cal Kid,

I noticed that too.

Pre-86, Sarah?

Post 86 dealer samples, LE guns, ect?

Where do I keep my guns?


Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:47:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By California_Kid:

Originally Posted By CRC:

...

The machine gun ban, by contrast, prohibits possession of fully automatic weapons in any location.






+1
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:51:51 PM EDT
"There is nothing I enjoy more than seeing my enemy commit an act of desparation"
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 3:54:45 PM EDT
Go Sammy!
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:00:47 PM EDT
I guess any doubts anyone here had about Alito sort of go out of the window by looking at the opposition to his nomination.

The maxim: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend," has never proven more true.
Link Posted: 1/11/2006 4:06:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/11/2006 4:06:53 PM EDT by LoginName]
Not to change the subject, but...

What are the different BATF SOT classifications for dealing in machine guns? I don't mean Class I, Class II, Class III. I mean the distinctions between pre 1968/post sample/dealer sample machine guns?

Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:53:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Inatree:
"There is nothing I enjoy more than seeing my enemy commit an act of desparation"




I would rather have them see the light and become progun.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:58:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DoubleFeed:
What machine gun ban might that be? Brady is outright lying while calling somebody else a liar.



Yep. And "Uncle Teddy" is questioning his integrity, and "Chuckie "is accusing him of "extremism"...



... you couldn't make stuff up funnier than this!
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 6:59:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LoginName:
Not to change the subject, but...

What are the different BATF SOT classifications for dealing in machine guns? I don't mean Class I, Class II, Class III. I mean the distinctions between pre 1968/post sample/dealer sample machine guns?




Class I, II, and III are the SOT classifications.

Importer, Manufacturer, Dealer.

All three may own any type of legal machine gun, be it pre/post samples or transferables, with the proper paperwork and/or LE/gov't letters requesting sales or samples.

Private citizens may only own machine guns that are properly held on an ATF Form 4 as fully transferable. (I would say only Pre-86 guns, but apparently there are post guns that exist on Form 4s, as well.)
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:02:22 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:06:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CRC:
ALITO MISLEADS COMMITTEE ON U.S. GUN LAWS
For Immediate Release:
01-10-2006 Contact Communications:
(202) 289-7319

Judge Alito also falsely suggested that the federal machine gun ban and Gun-Free School Zones Act were unique among federal firearms laws because they lack a “jurisdictional element,” requiring that prosecutors show that a machine gun had traveled in interstate commerce.





All they need do is look at the part of their statement I marked. He said, plainly, that Congress cannot make a law using the Commerce Clause when interstate travel is not involved or cannot be proven to disrupt interstate (as apposed to intrastate) commerce concerning the weapon - whether it be concerning a gun within a school zone or standing in your yard in your underwear with a machine gun. Stupid is as stupid does...

Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:12:19 AM EDT
The Brady Campaign is no longer relevant, and hardly a threat.

How's this: When I run across people who are anti-gun - you know, the "only the cops need assault weapons" crowd - none of them know who the Brady Campaign is. They DO know who the NRA is, however.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:15:29 AM EDT
It's a terrible thing that her husband was shot, and I feel for her. If Hinkley had used a knife on J. Brady would she be pushing for a ban on them? Perhaps she should focus all that misspent energy on keeping Hinkley put away instead of trying to ban my hobby.
Link Posted: 1/12/2006 7:29:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Quien:
... Perhaps she should focus all that misspent energy on keeping Hinkley put away instead of trying to ban my hobby.



Didn't I just recently hear that he would soon be allowed out for periods of time (visiting family, etc.)?
Top Top