Major Gun Groups Oppose Supreme Court Nomination

By Woody published on in News

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, Gun Owners of America, and the Second Amendment Foundation have all come out against the nomination of U.S. Appeals Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the U.S. Supreme Court.

President Barack Obama nominated Garland, 63, to replace Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, who died on Feb. 13. He was appointed to the appeals court in 1995 by President Bill Clinton and has been chief justice of the court in Washington since 2013.

President Barack Obama, left, has nominated Judge Merrick Garland, right, to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the death to Justice Antonin Scalia. Photo courtesy of NRA-ILA.

President Barack Obama, left, has nominated Judge Merrick Garland, right, to fill the vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court left by the death to Justice Antonin Scalia. Photo courtesy of NRA-ILA.

Chris W. Cox, executive director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action, said in a statement, “With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right—and four justices do not. Obama has already nominated two Supreme Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms, and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach this time.

“In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our 5 million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Gun Owners of America said Wednesday that it would oppose the nomination of U.S. Appeals Court Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court because he “is not only anti-gun, he supports the ability of a president to illegally use executive power to advance liberal causes.”

“If Garland were confirmed, we can expect to see more gun registration, more gun bans, more limitations on ammunition—and all of it would be approved by the Supreme Court,” said the group’s executive director, Erich Pratt. “As a practical matter, good people will go to prison for exercising their constitutionally-protected rights.”

Pratt added that in 2007, Garland voted to reverse a D.C. Circuit Court decision striking down Washington’s handgun ban as unconstitutional. A three-judge panel had ruled against the ban in what became known as the Heller case.

Seven years earlier, Garland backed a Clinton administration move to maintain the registration of gun owners in NRA v. Reno.

His vote in the McDonald case supported the White House’s efforts to use the instant check to illegally retain the names of gun owners for six months.

Both decisions were later struck down by the Supreme Court in 5-4 decisions. In the Heller case, Scalia cast the deciding vote and wrote the majority opinion, the Daily Signal reports.

“Hence, we don’t have to speculate as to how Garland would vote on Heller if confirmed to the Supreme Court,” Pratt said. “He’s already voted against Heller once before, thereby showing he’d effectively rip the Second Amendment from the Constitution.”

The founder of the Bellevue, Washington-based Second Amendment Foundation, Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, said, “This is not a good nomination and Judge Garland should not be confirmed.”

President Obama nominated Garland, who is the chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill the seat left vacant by the untimely death of Justice Antonin Scalia, author of the landmark 2008 Second Amendment ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. Scalia was considered a giant on the court and one of its finest conservative voices.

On the other hand, “Judge Garland voted to grant an en banc hearing to Heller after the three judge panel struck down the District of Columbia’s gun ban law. The only reason to do so would be to overturn the pro Second Amendment ruling. That was hostile to gun rights.”

Gottlieb said, “Those of us on the front lines of the Second Amendment battle have warned for the past eight years that the right to keep and bear arms can live or die on a single vote, and nothing makes that more clear than today’s nomination. I hope the Senate, if it takes up this nomination, promptly rejects it.”

Should the Republican-led Senate block the confirmation of Garland entirely, or hold a vote? If the Senate holds a vote, would Garland be confirmed?

Tags: , , , ,

Trackback from your site.

The mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, "The Shooter's Log," is to provide information-not opinions-to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (14)

  • Edward

    |

    I am a senior citizen and fear for the loss of our freedoms in America the lack of respect by Obama and specifically Destruction of America by the Democrats. I fear for the freedoms we will loose should we have another Clinton in the Executive office.It is time the people clean house and move toward cleaning house by removal of the career politicians that are there first to serve themselves and their party above the people and guarding our freedoms. God Bless America

    Reply

  • TxTruth

    |

    Yeah I trust the Republicans with their cuckold style of governing to stop Obama and the soon to be next President, Hillary Clinton from getting their way.

    Man the Republicans are going to get tough on Obama and the democrats. Just like when they put an end to Obamacare and impeached him….oh yeah they didn’t. Bunch of lame ass Republiwimps in congress.

    Even if Ted Cruz and his RINO/Neocon associates are able to cheat and use dirty tricks to keep Trump from being the nominee and, he then somehow manages to beat Hillary in the general election(he won’t), he’s going to sell the country out. He is a Bush by another name and an Israel Firster. He puts on this act like he’s an outsider when he’s really and insider and has involved with the Bush Crime Family for many years. His loyalties lie with the Global Elite’s special interests and Israel’s interests, not Americas.

    Wake up people. You may not like Trump but he isn’t controlled like all these other candidates with their skeletons in the closet. Its getting us nowhere and its insane thinking that voting for another groomed Manchurian candidate Republican or Democrat is going to change anything for the better.

    Reply

  • Tommy

    |

    The Republican led Senate should block any recommendations from Obama. Our freedom depends on it. Obama,Clinton and Sanders are all socialist wanting to see our Constitution fall.

    Reply

    • Matt

      |

      Bernie is a patriot and does not want to see our constitution fail.

      Reply

  • Richard

    |

    Just another underhanded trick of Obama.And Hillary right on his Heels

    Reply

  • dprato

    |

    Those organizations are right to take the position they are taking for a variety of reasons. First, during the Alito nomination years ago both Obama and Reid refused to consider the nomination. Now, hypocrites that they are, suddenly it is their Constitutional Duty to do so. While it is also their Constitutional Duty to enforce the laws of the land they conveniently fail to enforce our immigration laws and continually violate the law in a host of other areas;. We have now entered a phase of American History where Democrats in particular believe they have the right to pick and choose which laws they will obey and which they will ignore. So we have had them demonstrate their lack of respect for freedom of speech, assembly, privacy, the right to bear arms, and disrespect for law generally and law enforcement. Its time to take this Country back and fight fire with fire and under no circumstances should Republicans consider any of Obama’s appointments, period.

    Reply

    • garfield kat

      |

      I am at this moment so frustrated and angry that I do not have the respectable words to comment further and I am not going to resolve myself to using explicit language. I do however want to let you know that I am in total agreement with you.

      Reply

    • Juanito Ibañez

      |

      Best thing is to use their own words against them.

      Senator Charles ‘Chucky the Cereal Killer’ Schumer (D-NY) vowed in 2007 to block any and all Supreme Court nominations by President George W. Bush should any vacancies arise:

      “We should reverse the (Republicans’) presumption of (a Supreme Court nominee’s) confirmation.”
      –Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), 27 July, 2007

      “What goes around comes around.”

      “Turnabout is fair play.”

      :-)

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      You need to read those words you plan on using as a weapon more carefully. Schumer said we should revers the republican’s presumption of CONFIRMATION. He didn’t say they would refuse to do their job. The GOP won’t even do their constitutional duty and hold the hearing then vote.

      Reply

    • schmairb dandlefatsch

      |

      I’m in complete agreement with Garfield Kat

      Reply

    • Matt

      |

      What you said makes no sense. Alito was confirmed and sits on the court now. The senate can vote yes or no, but it’s their constitutional duty to hold a vote.

      Reply

  • Al

    |

    Sad state of affairs… Lets look at the big picture. My father always said to follow the money. Following the money leads me to find a huge national debt coming due over the next few years, trillions of dollars. China, whose economy is suffering a downturn, was the largest buyer of American debt in the form of bonds. The strong dollar has kept the bonds valuable, but the strong dollar is strong only because others are weak. If no one buys US bonds, all those “entitlement” programs will draw to a close as there will be no money to fund them. During the BHO presidency, debt has more than doubled and the economic recovery is very anemic to non-existent for most of us in the middle class. Why would the rich liberal elitists not support disarming the country? Didn’t Jefferson warn us about this happening? What can one do? I really don’t know. I have no answers as I am old and have watched the cancer of entitlement eat away our nation to the extant that our children no longer know the taste of freedom.

    Reply

    • Juanito Ibañez

      |

      “The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government.”
      –Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

      Reply

  • Archangel

    |

    Is anyone surprised?? OF COURSE the Chief Crook and Bottle Snatcher in the WH would appoint an anti-constitution judge – Obama considers the Constitution an inconvenient set of suggestions that he doesn’t have to live by anyway

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload the CAPTCHA.

%d bloggers like this: