They say it like it’s a bad thing
The VPC:
Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito’s Views Could Imperil Most Federal Gun, Ammo, and Explosives Laws, New Violence Policy Center Backgrounder Shows
So, which is it? You guys are fond of saying firearms are unregulated. They conclude with:
If Judge Samuel Alito’s views on firearms and public safety, as expressed through his minority opinion in U.S. v. Rybar, became the law of the land, all Americans would be at greater risk from virtually uncontrollable firearms proliferation. The federal government would be almost powerless to keep firearms, ammunition, and other deadly commodities out of the hands of criminals and even terrorists. In a time of increased concern regarding homeland security, such views are not only counterintuitive, but exceedingly dangerous.
First of all, this case reflected his views on the commerce clause and not guns and public safety. His effort to address congress’ authority is refreshing. Second, I don’t know of a firearms law that has kept a gun out of the hands of a criminal.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:52 am
They write like he’s becoming a sole supreme being – like a dictator.
FCS, he’s going to be one of 9 voices that decide the arguments of citizens after laws are passed by two bodies of 500+ representatives.
It’s an important role, but it’s not *that* powerful.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Ironically, I anticipate that Alito’s having the audacity to evaluate whether interstate commerce exists in a Federal statute may prove to generate more Senate antipathy than his deciding the case on 2A grounds, which he did not do.
Seems like I remember Arlen Specter grousing about John Roberts having the temerity to not simply assume the existence in one of his opinions.
I lost my faith in SCOTUS when, 25 years ago in Constitutional Law (1st year law school), I read a case in which SCOTUS held that interstate commerce existed in connection with a Federal regulation on growing crops for “on the farm” consumption, and not for shipping on an interstate basis.
That, my friends, is shameful, and I hope that Justice Roberts and Judge (soon to be Justice) Alito continue carefully evaluating Federal statutes and regulations from an interstate commerce perspective.
November 3rd, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Chris, from a 2A perspecive, I doubt it’s looking good as well. See here.
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:28 pm
I’m not sure it even makes sense to read too much into Judge Alito’s ruling in Rybar. One possibility is that he personally believes the commerce power is too narrow to reach private possession of machine guns, but a more likely one is that he merely believed in 1996 that the new Lopez precedent, which the Supremes obliterated earlier this year in Raich, required him to rule that way.
November 3rd, 2005 at 3:44 pm
My understanding (and I haven’t read the entire opinion) was that he simply wanted Congress to state that the guns had an impact on commerce. Since they failed to do the minimum – put in the begining of the act that congress found some impact on interstate commerce – they law couldn’t stand.