Even More on Machine Gun Sammy
I said here:
I have to confess that while I found his dissent in the machine gun case refreshing, it does not necessarily denote his views on the second amendment. He may be pro-gun but he may also have been sniping at the definite lack of a commerce clause.
Matt Rustler takes a much more in depth look into it:
Note that, in arguing the individual rights view, Alito wouldn’t have had to argue that the Second Amendment guarantees an unfettered individual right to a machine gun. There is much in the majority opinion to criticize without going that far. Alito studiously ignored all of it. That doesn’t fill me with great confidence.
Read the whole thing. In my opinion, that and the fact that Alito is from Hell err New Jersey, have me a bit concerned regarding his views on the Second Amendment.
So, as of now, I am neutral on the Alito nomination until I hear more.
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:18 am
I’d think you’d be above identity politics. Why should where a guy’s from matter? Would you be concerned about Xrlq’s stances on issues because he’s from California?
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:29 am
Have you been to New Jersey?
Actually, it was meant to be a joke.
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:09 am
Uh, dude, I am sort of from Jersey too.
And so is the Geek w/a 45
and if I remember correctly, the Gun Guy spent a number of years living there too.
The difference is, of course, we all left long ago. HOwever, there is lots to be said for Jersey – some of the beaches are nice, the women are super easy (if just slightly diseased), its rural areas are pretty (not the parts most people ever get to see) and its right outside Manhattan (which is a plus if you like the NY City cosmopolitan thing).
November 2nd, 2005 at 11:21 am
Dude, if you’re going to support or oppose a Supreme Court nominee “on the issues,” as the rest of us do for elected representatives, shouldn’t you have backed Harriet Miers? I don’t know of any Supreme Court nominee who has ever made his/her support of the RKBA as explicit as she did.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:16 pm
I lived in NJ for three years myself.
Xrlq, a quote from 92ish didn’t do it for me. And there was the little bit about the fact she wasn’t, uhm what’s the word, qualified.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:26 pm
One more thing: I think the machine gun case does at least denote that he’s not hostile to the second amendment. That doesn’t make me a full-fledge supporter but it will be interesting to see in the hearings. John Roberts, while not revealing his view, did correctly state that something needed to be done. Since he didn’t misrepresent Miller, I took that has a good sign.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:36 pm
OK two more things: Given that the MG case got some news coverage, I wonder if that would motivate him to address the second amendment the wrong way to appear more confirmable?
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:39 pm
Uncle, if the 1992 statement wasn’t enough, what would have been? It’s doubtful we’ll ever get another appointee who’s clearer on the issue than Miers was. Then again, if you’re going to squabble over arcane stuff like “qualifications,” maybe we shouldn’t be talking about nominees’ positions on the issues at all.
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:44 pm
Good point. But I think the ideal would be someone who is both qualified and correct.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Judging folks based on where they’re form has some merit. See if the u.S. was one big homgenous place then it’d be baseless, but the culture in NJ is different from the culture in NC which is different fromt he culture in Co which is different from the culture in Cali which is different fromt he culture in…etc.
NJ is not a gun friendly place. Not just legally but culturally (one can have a strong influence on the other). The folks who are concerned about gun issues usually relocate to a state more gun friendly (i.e. Geek’s exodus to Pa). Sometimes folks are trapped for one reason or another, but then again some folks just acclimate to a culture & view it as the norm.
So anytime I hear of a pro-gun person from NJ, or Illinois, or Cali I automatically deduct a few pro-gun points, simply because there’s a greater chance they’re going to be comfy w/ some forms of gun control. Take X’s views (or what I assume/recall to be his views). He’s cool w/ permits to carry, registration, prohibitions on “plastic” guns (i.e. ones that can go through a metal detector undetected) & a few other things (& forgive me if I’m misrepresenting your views X – it’s been a while since we had that argument & I’m going from a less than pristine memory). In part this is probably due to his living (or possibly growing up) in Cali where that sort of thing is acceptable.
Someone growing up in Vermont, where carry permits are not required, would likely be less inclined to accept them.
So forming an initial (key word: initial) opinion on someone based on where they live &/or grew up is not unreasonable. Another example – I presume everyone who does not bitch about Boulder to be of the left wing statist sort if they ay they live up there. In ome insances I’m wrong, but the majority of the time they’d glare menacingly at me if I started quoting Locke or dissing Lenin or Marx.
& X,
Miers’ paragraph & possibly still being a gun owner were encouraging. What I found troubling was A: everyone hinging on one para & her possibly still owning a gun & B: the argument made by her supporter (Particularly Hewitt) that she’d be “understanding” of the needs of the administration (i.e. executive branch) in the GWOT. The first seems encouraging true, but coupled with the second I think there was a real chance she would have more or less decided the 2nd is an individual Right, but subject to damn near any “compelling state interest” that came along. Not saying that’s how it would have went down, just that it was enough of a concern to make me wary.
& as to what would have been enough – I would have been fully supportive of & confident in Kozinski’s nomination. Fairly or not he is the standard which all nominees should be judged as to being correct on the 2nd amendment.
November 2nd, 2005 at 7:03 pm
Publicola, I am not “cool” with registration, which I think is a bad idea. I just don’t buy into the notion that it’s unconstitutional, which is a different issue. And that, frankly, has a lot more to do with my being a lawyer than it does from being from Cali. And that not so much because lawyers are anti-gun (I have no time for those lawyers) but because the more you learn about how the legal system works, the clearer your picture gets as to what gun rights would or would not look like if courts applied the Second Amendment roughly the same way they enforce the others.
I do support a ban on undetectable firearms, however, and will continue to do so until someone can explain the net utility of an undetectable firearm to the law-abiding gun owner. If someone managed to invent an “evil genius gun” that was very useful in robbing banks but utterly useless for self-defense, I’d likely favor a ban on that, too. As to permit requirements, I don’t favor permit systems anything like California’s; in fact, I much prefer Colorado’s. Vermont’s is better still, and Alaska’s (which doesn’t require permits but does issue to those who choose to apply anyway) is best of all. So whatever our differences may be on guns, I can assure that my being from California has nothing to do with it. Still, FWIW I should point out that the part of California I currently reside in, Orange County, would be one of the reddest states in the country, were it a state at all.