"MACHINE GUN SAMMY," A PERFECT HALLOWEEN PICK (Brady hates Alito)

[Dan from MI]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=701

"MACHINE GUN SAMMY," A PERFECT HALLOWEEN PICK
For Immediate Release:
10-31-2005 Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Washington, D.C. - How could it have gone in any other direction, from a White House that just gave blanket immunity to the gun industry, which refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, that broke a campaign promise and put Uzis and AK-47s back on America’s city streets, and insisted that records of gun purchases be destroyed before the sun sets on them twice?

It had to be a Supreme Court pick that favors legal machine guns.

In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.

“Earth to Sammy - who needs legal machine guns?” asked Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign. “The Chicago mobsters of the 1930s would be giddy. But the man I worked for, who gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and signed the 1986 machine gun ban, would be shaking his head.”

“Judge Alito’s ludicrous machine gun decision is bad enough. But it also indicates that a Justice Ilito would attempt to prevent Congress from passing other laws to protect Americans from gun violence,” said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign. “If Judge Alito had his way, the federal machine gun ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional, and the private possession of these weapons would have become legal.”


---------------------------

A good start.

 

[dasmi]

“The Chicago mobsters of the 1930s would be giddy.

No, they'd be worried. This means legal citizens will be able to have equal or better weapons to the criminals.

 

[fourays2]

http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.php?release=701

"MACHINE GUN SAMMY," A PERFECT HALLOWEEN PICK
For Immediate Release:
10-31-2005 Contact Communications:
(202) 898-0792
Washington, D.C. - How could it have gone in any other direction, from a White House that just gave blanket immunity to the gun industry, which refuses to bar terrorists from buying guns, that broke a campaign promise and put Uzis and AK-47s back on America’s city streets, and insisted that records of gun purchases be destroyed before the sun sets on them twice?

It had to be a Supreme Court pick that favors legal machine guns.

In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.

“Earth to Sammy - who needs legal machine guns?” asked Jim Brady, chair of the Brady Campaign. “The Chicago mobsters of the 1930s would be giddy. But the man I worked for, who gave us Sandra Day O’Connor and signed the 1986 machine gun ban, would be shaking his head.”

“Judge Alito’s ludicrous machine gun decision is bad enough. But it also indicates that a Justice Ilito would attempt to prevent Congress from passing other laws to protect Americans from gun violence,” said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign. “If Judge Alito had his way, the federal machine gun ban would have been struck down as unconstitutional, and the private possession of these weapons would have become legal.”


---------------------------

A good start.

that's quite the endorsement as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Kim]

These people are liars. What do they mean the private posession of machine guns would have become legal.. Heck they are legal.

 

[tuna]

People who aren't criminals who want to have one.

 

[El Tejon]

Hey, Jim, machine guns are legal.

We just don't want them regulated, you know, like the Constitution-in-exile says.

 

[neoncowboy]

I can't believe these people don't see or acknowledge the difference between:
a) supporting more machine guns for the public
- and -
b) recognizing that the constitution offers no grounds on which they might be banned

 

[Henry Bowman]

I'd call that a glowing endorsement.

In 1996, Judge Samuel Alito was the sole judge who dissented from his Third Circuit Court of Appeals colleagues when they upheld the authority of Congress to ban fully automatic machine guns.

Uh.. in a three-judge panel there can only be a "sole" dissenter.

 

[boofus]

And now you see why despite Bush and other Republicans' shortcomings NO Democrat will ever get my vote.

Machineguns have ALL the 'common sense gun control' measures the grabbers asked for:

1) registration
2) owner licensing
3) 3-9 month waiting period
4) ATF approval
5) Law enforcement permission slip
6) federal transfer tax

But they still wanted to ban them and they did in 1986.

SENSIBLE GUN CONTROL so far has a 100% track record of leading to a complete ban. Remember that the next time some Democrat scumbag is trying to trick you into voting for them.

 

[HighVelocity]

Every time I see one of these Brady posts, I'm disgusted with the immature nature. "Earth to Sammy"? That sounds like some PETA drivel. They sure don't act very adult when discussing a serious adult topic.
Alito's name is even misspelled once in the article.

 

[benEzra]

If you read the opinion (I have), he basically just states that Congress didn't even bother to try to claim jurisdiction. I did not read it as invalidating the NFA, merely questioning its application insofar as the defendant was charged with failure to do something that is prohibited by law (i.e., failing to register a post-1986 full-auto). The judge may well be OK with the NFA but feel the registry should be reopened, or might be OK with it as it stands if Congress bothered to explain its spurious reasoning, or whatever.

Looks like I'll have to go back and read the opinion again...

 

[EOD Guy]

I'd call that a glowing endorsement.

Uh.. in a three-judge panel there can only be a "sole" dissenter.

There are 13 judges on the Third Cicuit Court of Appeals.

 

[RavenVT100]

“Judge Alito’s ludicrous machine gun decision is bad enough. But it also indicates that a Justice Ilito would attempt to prevent Congress from passing other laws to protect Americans from gun violence,” said Michael D. Barnes, President of the Brady Campaign.

 

[TrybalRage]

Uh oh.

From wikipedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alito

Prior to Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court, these noted figures rendered these comments on Alito:

Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA): “You have obviously had a very distinguished record, and I certainly commend you for long service in the public interest. I think it is a very commendable career and I am sure you will have a successful one as a judge.” [1]
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ): “I believe Mr. Alito has the experience and the skills to be the kind of judge the public deserves – one who is impartial, thoughtful, and fair. I urge the Senate to confirm his nomination.” [2]

 

[DirksterG30]

Raven,

That about sums it up for me too. If the Brady Campaign doesn't like him, that's another reason to consider him a good pick for the SCOTUS.

 

[Henry Bowman]

There are 13 judges on the Third Cicuit Court of Appeals.

They all vote only on an en banc decision. The Rybar case was decided by the usual panel of 3 judges: Sloviter, the Chief Judge of the 3rd Circuit; Alito; and Marjorie O. Rendell, US Dist. judge for the Eastern Dist. of Penn., sitting by designation*).

The point is that every word of the Brady press release is spin, spin, spin.



*Usually because of a heavy workload created by judge vacancies.

 

[willeo6709]

I wonder, is Alito and avid shooter? Class 3 himself? Heck, I'd rent him a machinegun at knob creek on my tab just for the photo op......

 

[EOD Guy]

They all vote only on an en banc decision. The Rybar case was decided by the usual panel of 3 judges: Sloviter, the Chief Judge of the 3rd Circuit; Alito; and Marjorie O. Rendell, US Dist. judge for the Eastern Dist. of Penn., sitting by designation*).

The point is that every word of the Brady press release is spin, spin, spin.



*Usually because of a heavy workload created by judge vacancies.

Thanks for the information.

I agree fully with your description of the Brady release.

 

[PromptCritical]

Oh man, this is gonna be good.

I wanna see the grabbers in a full scale, prompt-critical meltdown. When's this gonna be on C-Span? I'm buying popcorn and beer.

 

[scout26]

If Harry, Teddy, Chuckie, and the Brady Bunch are already foaming at the mouth with their undies all knotted and wadded up, then he's a good pick.

Definitely time to stock up on popcorn for the confirmation hearings. Altough Mrs. Scout gets upset when I throw popcorn at TV when C-Span shows Teddy, that other fraud from MA, Chuckie, Hillary, either of my senators or the senators from CA.

The dog, on the other hand, loves it when I watch C-Span.

 

[Kharn]

I'd call that a glowing endorsement.

Uh.. in a three-judge panel there can only be a "sole" dissenter.

I love how they forget to mention that it was only a 3-judge panel. :banghead:

Kharn

 

[publius]

Scalito? No, looks like Thomasito to me...

You be the judge of Judge Alito's dissent in US v Rybar.

Was United States v. Lopez, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995), a constitutional freak? Or did it signify that the Commerce Clause still imposes some meaningful limits on congressional power?

...

In other words, the majority argues in effect that the private, purely intrastate possession of machine guns has a substantial effect on the interstate machine gun market. This theory, if accepted, would go far toward converting Congress's authority to regulate interstate commerce into "a plenary police power." Lopez, --- U.S. at ----, 115 S.Ct. at 1633. If there is any sort of interstate market for a commodity--and I think that it is safe to assume that there is some sort of interstate market for practically everything--then the purely intrastate possession of that item will have an effect on that market, and outlawing private possession of the item will presumably have a substantial effect. Consequently, the majority's theory leads to the conclusion that Congress may ban the purely intrastate possession of just about anything.

...

The activity that the Lopez Court found was not "economic" or "connected with a commercial transaction" was a type of intrastate firearm possession, i.e., the possession of a firearm (including a machine gun) within a school zone. At issue here is another type of purely intrastate firearm possession, i.e., the purely intrastate possession of a machine gun. If the former must be regarded as non-economic and non-commercial, why isn't the same true of the latter? Is possession of a machine gun inherently more "economic" or more "commercial" than possession of other firearms? [Footnote 4] Is the possession of a firearm within a school zone somehow less "economic" and "commercial" than possession elsewhere--say, on one's own property? [Footnote 5] If there are distinctions of constitutional dimension here, they are too subtle for me to grasp.

 

[beerslurpy]

I predict that the whiners will go on about Casey and Rybar, but the democratic senators will listen to the businessmen in their states and decide to confirm him. The ultra-libs with the heavy union areas wont, but I predict half the Dems will vote for him in the end.

He is mildly conservative on social issues but his judicial temperment is mild and restrained and his support of contract law and the use of binding arbitration agreements to reduce legal costs will win him a lot of friends in the business world. Conservatives should love his federalism and his overall conservative leanings.

The real clincher is who leaves the high court next. O'Connor and Rehnquist were not exactly leftists, so it is fortunate we got to replace them. The big hope is for an unexpected liberal vacancy in the next year or so.

 

[KriegHund]

He he, that little paragraph made me smile.

 

[Standing Wolf]

This sounds like the most fun the Bradys have had in a long, long time.