News

Call to Action: Stop Merrick Garland from Being Confirmed

NRA-ILA logo

The NRA-ILA is asking for help and now is the time to step up! President Obama’s strategists are working overtime to secure the crown jewel of his anti-gun legacy: a U.S. Supreme Court that will reverse Heller for all time. The threat is real and without making our voices heard, there is always the chance for the Republican-controlled Senate to crumble on a vote. So, speak up and let your voice be heard. NRA-ILA logo For weeks, The Shooter’s Log as well as others have been warning of the grave danger to your rights posed by Barack Obama’s choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court. However, perhaps the NRA-ILA says it best so here is the release it recently sent out.

With typical arrogance, Obama deliberately chose the candidate with the most anti-gun record of his short-list of finalists. Now, he and his usual supporters in the media and academia seek to mock and disparage the principled stand pro-freedom groups, including your NRA, are taking against Garland.

Senate leadership has held firm in their determination to hold the line against letting Obama tip the court to his ideological advantage.

Make no mistake, Obama has a carefully planned strategy to advance Garland’s nomination that (in typical fashion) depends on exploiting polite acts of goodwill, like the courtesy meetings some Senators have granted to Garland. An article in the New York Times candidly detailed how Obama’s strategists see such meetings as the vital first step in their plan. Like the snake oil salesmen they are, they know they have to first get their foot in the door before they can begin making their pitch.

Supreme Court Building
The Supreme Court will now have to decide whether or not to hear the an appeal on the SAFE Act.

Garland’s antigun ideology is clear from his record. While serving in his capacity as an appeals court judge, for example, Garland voted to give D.C.’s unconstitutional gun ban a second chance. He also cast a vote to uphold a Clinton-era policy of documenting and registering law-abiding gun buyers, despite federal statutes passed specifically to prevent this.

National registration. The individual right protected by the Second Amendment. Gun bans. These are issues that cut to the heart of the right to keep and bear arms. And whenever he had the chance, Garland was on the wrong side of them.

We’ve seen before the theatrical fury and disbelief that Obama and his surrogates display when they don’t get their way, and we’re seeing it again now. That’s why it is critically important for your Senators to know they have your support in standing against Garland’s nomination.

Obama and his cronies know that the Supreme Court’s support for the individual right to keep and bear firearms under the Second Amendment is (at best for pro-gun advocates) evenly split. The next appointment will inevitably sway the court for or against upholding the promise of the landmark Heller and McDonald decisions.

Write Your Lawmakers or call the congressional switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to make your voices heard.

[dave]

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 (30)

  1. Since old Mitch is refusing to do his job when it comes to bringing Garland up for a vote I’m not sure why there is any worry. It isn’t as if he’s going to ever get confirmed. Sure glad the Constitution isn’t a real concern when it comes to appointing judges in a timely manner.

    1. I feel that many here see the Constitution as nothing more than a carrier for the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd is ironclad and not up for any discussion, but the rest is optional. The responsibility for confirming judicial appointees doesn’t matter because, you know, Obama.

    2. @ Whiskeydawg,

      Allow me to enlighten you on your apparent misconceptions regarding the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it ever imply a duty for Congress to confirm a Judicial Nominee under any certain time frame.

      Forgive my preemptive argument in advance here, but I am so used to the liberals injecting the “Constitution was based on muskets” analogy that I would be remiss for not pointing out that since time had already been invented well before the framers wrote the Constitution, I believe we can all conclude with certainty they anticipated the future effects of intentionally leaving out Constitutional time constraints.

      So, for you to infer the leader of the Senate “is refusing to do his job” would be unequivocally false. Now follow me here… The same tools put in place by the Constitution which Obama has so often used to circumvent Congress for the past 7 years are also available to Congress.

      Therefore the decision by Congressional leadership to exercise its authority to carry out the will of the people they represent is in-fact the act of “doing their job”; even if that means refusing to do something within Constitutional boundaries. And obviously the Constitution allows this whether you agree with it or not.

      But rather than understand the necessity of the process which was ultimately designed to provide balance across the 3 separate branches of government, you liberals instead choose to cry foul and whine that someone hasn’t done their job. I recommend you educate yourself on such matter before you publicly post. It may just prevent you from looking like such a fool in the future (assuming you care).

  2. well i guess when the crap hits the fan the brave will have to muster against the tyranny that has been going on for 7 years because of the first group of dimwits that voted in the first black prez, the worst prez, and for sure helped other countries before the one he took a oath on to protect.

  3. To think I care about whether or not I am in compliance with some non-constitutional administrative ruling will be the least of my concerns, instead of listening to fools and traitors I exercise ALL my God Given Constitutional rights not caring what some one dimensional regressive politically correct lieberal bureaucrat wants!!! Instead I will focus on center mass, maintaining fire discipline, and assessing immediate threat vectors!

    Let me make one thing perfectly clear, yes I am a Christian, and yes I carry a gun. One might think I carry a gun because I don’t trust God. Well you would be wrong. I have complete faith in my Lord; it’s an oppressive government that believes it has the right to dictate what I can and cannot have, can and cannot think or say, can and cannot eat or drink etc., I have no trust in!

    ”Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.”
    “Taking my gun away because I might shoot someone is like cutting my tongue out because I might yell `Fire!’ in a crowded theater.”

  4. This is what it is going to take to disarm the populous of America there isn’t a thing any of us are gonna be able to do to stop it from behind a keyboard either

    1. Agreed. People have got to get out and work for their freedom and rights, because the power mongers are always going to want to make the population helpless pawns to their power plays.

  5. Do you really think the person that Hillary will nominate will be better? he or she will probably be much worse. I do not want Hillary to be President, but the reality is that there is almost no possibility that anyone else will be elected.

    1. But don’t stop fighting her. Get out and campaign and vote for the Republican candidate, because as much as we might like to see someone else in, there is no chance whatsoever of a Third party or independent winning. Voting for anyone other than the republican is just giving another vote to Clinton.

  6. A liberally biased Supreme Court would complete the throwing of our Federal Government into the cesspool. Say no to activist judges on the Supreme Court.

  7. If you want to save the Republic, there is at present only one obvious solution: ALWAYS vote the incumbents out of office.

  8. If you are serious about changing Washington
    There is another national party
    VOTE LIBERTARIAN
    In November neither Democrat or Republican
    will be in the White House
    Now vote it or shut it.

    1. I understand why you are advising this, but the truth is no Libertarian stands and snowball’s chance in Hades of winning. Consequently, voting Libertarian or a write-in is the same thing as giving the Democrat the vote since it’s just one more vote that will not go against them.

      The Republicans suck . . i agree, but not voting for one of them is just going to put Clinton in the WH.

    2. @Mikial agreed to an extent.
      Cruz is my man, and I hope for him to win. For all people’s “he has no friends”; what’s better? Chumming up like the current establishment does? Or getting things done?

    3. Agreed, Glenn. Cruz would be excellent, and Trump would be better than Clinton. I think that’s pretty much what our realistic choices are going to come down to.

  9. Too many people in the US are willing to allow the establishment to make decisions without taking responsibility for them. Too many people sit back and watch the “Powers That Be” do what they do and think, “Of that’s just what they do.” We think that all we can do is get out and vote but we can knock on doors, we can get on social media and put the facts out there. Don’t be the person that people say is the nutjob. Be the person who is informed and knows what they are talking about. Be subtle, not overbearing.

    You may not win one person over but after speaking to you they will be informed and you will know where you stand in your circle.

  10. If you don’t want Judge Garland on the SCOTUS, or a worse nominee by “President Hillary Clinton” then you need to vote for WHOEVER is the GOP Nominee…..Trump…Cruz….Kasich.

    And that means vote…donate $$$….and talk up.

    Sitting out this election because “your” candidate didn’t make it, will tilt the SCOTUS for DECADES…maybe permanently

  11. “With typical arrogance, Obama deliberately chose the candidate with the most anti-gun record of his short-list of finalists.”

    This is a downright lie. Obama picked a candidate that Oren Hatch had just said would make a fine justice. He could have picked a fervent anti-gun liberal but he didn’t. The “arrogance” part is nothing but a racist dog whistle. Well done NRA, as usual.

    1. @ Matt,

      You call it a lie, but for a statement to qualify as a bona fide lie requires that actual facts exist which must directly refute the statement you are challenging to be a lie. Yet you have failed to present a single fact – because there are none.

      Irrespective of Orrin Hatch’s personal opinions which appear to support Garland, the fact is Obama did select the candidate with the most anti-gun record from those in his list of finalists – and therefore cannot be construed as a lie perpetrated by the NRA. Top this off with the fact that Orrin Hatch still opined that the Senate should wait until after the election so that the newly elected President may instead nominate a Justice.

      Therefore, your misconception that one Senator’s arbitrary opinion somehow makes the NRA statement a lie is utterly ridiculous. Worse is that you actually believe one Senator’s opinion effectively serves as your entire point of contention to refute the opinions of millions of other free thinkers who agree that this nominee is anti-gun, and have done so based on his actual judicial record and not some Senator’s opinion.

      Your comment clearly places you in the “Little League of Liberal Thought”. Attempting to apply the same blind followership philosophies of the liberal culture to the astute minded individual thinking of conservative gun owners will not work here. Our DNA allows us to be quite aware we actually have a mind of our own and we know how to use it.

      Unlike you and your liberal sheeple, we do not check our minds at the door and leave all our thinking to a few old establishment farts in Congress. Such a concept is a mindless liberal fallacy which means you are pointlessly posting to the wrong crowd.

      And given that no one ever implied it but you, your associating “arrogance” to a race makes you the racist. As I am quite certain the rest of us know full well that anyone from any race is capable of being “arrogant” regardless of the color of their skin.

      Besides, I have to assume you stopped paying your dues and therefore no longer receive your subscription to the “Liberal Talking Points Memo”, but they stopped playing the race card the middle of Obama’s second term because it always backfired. Yeah… you guys claiming anyone that defied anything Obama propose to be racist went out early last year. It’s old, ineffective, and all used up so the liberals stopped using it. Just thought I’d bring you up to speed is all.

    2. @ Matt,

      You can’t find a legitimate source to satisfy the appetite driven by your narrow-minded confirmation bias so instead choose to reduce yourself to posting a link to a single obscure opinion written by a nobody buried deep in the bowels of a Wikipedia discussion. How very sad of you.

      I can at least credit you with ideological consistency in that you continue to practice your strong liberal beliefs that everyone must sheepishly be ruled by a single opinion no matter how insignificant; albeit this time around the single opinion did come from a nobody’s post on a Wikipedia subpage as opposed to a Senator.

      Lowering your standards to reach your perverted goals at any cost, including your reputability, is after all keeping with the true liberal way. But as I wrote before, no surprises there and again exactly what I expected which still amounts to …nothing.

  12. I don’t think you have to worry. The Senate won’t even do their job and hold a hearing. He’s not going to be confirmed.

  13. Please, please get over the Heller decision thing. Even with a fully loaded conservative supreme court, many local firearm regulations will likely be upheld or not even reviewed by the court when it had a conservative majority. None of the rights provided under the Bill of Rights are granted to us in a completely unfettered fashion. They have always been subject to reasonable regulation. It follows that the real focus should be on getting local governments to adopt reasonable rules that balance our right to bear arms against understandable community concerns about safety and security.

  14. Already sent my letters to my two worthless Liberal scum Senators. Won’t do any good because they are nothing but a couple of Obama drones, but at least i did my part.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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.