Still no news about the Peruta case.
Special thanks need to go out to former Senators Harry Reid and Joe Biden. Thanks to the Biden Rule and the Reid Rule, we’re saying “Justice Gorsuch” instead of “Justice Garland”. After the Senate applied the rules he once supported, anti-gun fruitloop Chucky Schumer wasn’t able to stop Justice Gorsuch’s nomination.
Does this guarantee solid, conservative/libertarian rulings from the Court? Of course not. The (usually) 5-4 majority has been restored, but that doesn’t tell us how people like Anthony Kennedy or John Roberts will vote. We’ll be able to breath easier once Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have decided to ride off into the sunset. Additionally, Gorsuch isn’t a results oriented jurist. If lawyers appearing before the Court expect him to rule in their favor, they’d better have convincing, Constitutionally grounded arguments. He’s a reals over feels kinda guy.
All judges should be like this, but sadly they aren’t. Far too many, including many appointed by Republicans, rule based upon what public policies might flow from said ruling. A proper judge should rule based upon what the law and the Constitution require. If we don’t like the subsequent results, then it’s up to the People and their representatives to change the law and/or the Constitution; not a bunch of unelected clowns in black robes.
Following through on a campaign promise, President Trump has nominated 10th Circuit Judge Neil Gorsuch. Trump promised a strict Constitutionalist would fill the seat left by the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Justice Scalia, Judge Gorsuch interprets the Constitution and its language as that language was understood at the time of a passage’s adoption. For our proposes here on these pages, that means that “militia” means, as it did in c. 1788, “the whole people, except for a few public officials”, and not the National Guard; a 20th Century invention.
Predictably, the wingnut left has retired to their fainting couches. Gorsuch, who was approved by the Senate in 2006 on a voice vote, is suddenly an outrageous, “extremist” pick for the Supreme Court. (And keep in mind who was part of that Senate which approved Judge Gorsuch that day!)
Leading the howls of outrage is the Old Grey Lady. The NY Times editorial board refers to Judge Gorsuch as the “Nominee for a Stolen Seat“. Let me say from the start that I didn’t read the entire OP-ED piece. There quickly came a point where I just couldn’t stop laughing. It was probably this part…
It’s been almost a year since Senate Republicans took an empty Supreme Court seat hostage, discarding a constitutional duty that both parties have honored throughout American history and hobbling an entire branch of government for partisan gain.
President Trump had a great opportunity to repair some of that damage by nominating a moderate candidate for the vacancy, which was created when Justice Antonin Scalia died last February. Instead, he chose Neil Gorsuch, a very conservative judge from the federal Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit whose jurisprudence and writing style are often compared to those of Justice Scalia.
Those, by the way, were the 1st two paragraphs.
Let’s break that down a bit, shall we? The “constitutional duty” the Times refers to is to provide “advice and consent” to a President’s picks for positions such as Supreme Court justice. This would be Article II, section 2, clause 2 of the US Constitution. This is not, however, an obligation to rubber-stamp whatever picks the President may make. Indeed, the last Senate opted to abide by the Biden Rule and abstained from a vote on Merrick Garland’s nomination.
Some of the “damage” the Times mentions is spelled out later; namely the toxic political environment that the Times and others like them created following President Trump’s election! Apparently, Trump should have nominated a “moderate” (i.e. a barking mad liberal) because Muslims or some such. Maybe it has something to do with vagina hats. I don’t know. It’s hard to read while I’m laughing.
That last line, however, is a ringing endorsement of Judge Gorsuch. Anyone who compares to the late Justice Scalia is a fine pick for the high court.
…they aren’t wrong to be crazy about what they’re getting crazy about.
Perhaps I should explain the cray-cray.
The anti-gun left are losing their minds now that the only way they’ll keep President Trump from getting sworn in would be to steal every Bible within 200 miles of Washington D.C.. But let’s be honest, they have some very good reasons to be blowing a collective gasket. Let’s start with reason number 1:
DONALD TRUMP IS THE NEXT PRESIDENT!
This brings us to reason number 2: Hillary Clinton will not be picking the next three or four Supreme Court justices. Why not? See reason number 1. This is a solid justification for them to be having a Chernobyl-sized meltdown. Why? Reasons 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3:
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg, age 83
- Stephen Breyer, age 78
- Anthony Kennedy, age 80
So not only will President Trump be appointing Justice Scalia’s replacement, he may be in a position to turn the 5-4 court into a 7-2 court; and, to do so for a generation.
Our 2nd Amendment freedoms have been hanging by a thread ever since the landmark Heller ruling. The anti-gun left has been looking forward to snipping that thread. The passing of Justice Scalia earlier this year looked like their opportunity to do so. They would finally be able to rule the 2nd Amendment out of existence.
But that didn’t happen.
Shockingly, the Senate GOP held the line against Merrick Garland‘s appointment to the Court. In fact, they will be holding pro forma sessions until Donald Trump is actually sworn in to keep President Obama from making recess appointments. President Trump has promised to appoint a strict constructionist to fill the Scalia seat. In other words, a justice who won’t assign different meanings to the phrase “the people” in different parts of the Bill Of Rights. If it means individuals in the 4th Amendment, then it means individuals in the 2nd. It also means a justice who won’t creatively redefine “arms” to mean something other than weapons. Or one who won’t mistake the “militia” with the Army Reserve. These were the routes the anti-gun left intended to use to make the 2nd Amendment irrelevant. They know they can’t amend it away, so they’d simply rule it away.
And now that won’t happen. And that’s making them crazy; sensibly crazy.
Unlike the screeching, hysterical New York Daily News, Mother Jones offers a more sober assessment of what Donald Trump’s victory means for gun rights in America. (And I’ll apologize right now: You’re gonna have the Georgia Satellites playing in your head for the rest of the day!)
Say what you will about Mother Jones, but their reporting on gun rights has been pretty fair. Rather than join in with the rest of the media fanning fears of “mass shootings” happening every other day, they looked at what’s really happening. They found, of course, that the Obama administration and their accomplices in the media have been lying: Mass shootings are not on the rise. Are they a pro-RKBA organization? Of course not. They’re a news organization; which is far more than can be said of companies like CNN, NBC, or the New York Daily News.
The piece cited above offers a realistic look at what gun owners (and the anti-gun Left) can expect from a Trump administration. First and foremost will be a flurry of executive orders overturning Obama’s less-than-legal EOs.
Most immediately, President Barack Obama’s executive orders on guns will be gone. (Obama has signed orders requiring more gun sellers to conduct background checks, requiring dealers to report lost or stolen guns, establishing an investigation center to track online gun trafficking, and launching research into gun safety technology.) “They’re going to overturn almost everything that Obama did,” [UCLA professor Adam] Winkler says.
President-elect Trump has promised that Obama’s EOs are going out the window on day one. Next up will be the Supreme Court. This is without a doubt the single most important issue of this past election for gun owners. Congresses and presidents come and go, but a Court ruling can last multiple lifetimes.
When the NRA magazine America’s 1st Freedom asked Trump whether the Second Amendment will be a consideration of his in nominating the next Supreme Court justice, he replied, “100 percent. I will appoint judges who will preserve our Second Amendment rights.”
Of the 21 names of possible justices Trump has released, the NRA considers none of them “non-starters,” an NRA spokeswoman told the Wall Street Journal. But the gun lobby has some favorites, including Judge Bill Prior of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, who once called victims of violence and local and state governments that sued gun manufacturers “leftist bounty hunters.”
Finally, there’s pro-gun legislation on the table. National CCW reciprocity, which had the NY Daily News in such a tizzy, is likely the first piece of legislation that will cross President Trump’s desk.
“Gun owners are looking at an opportunity to go on the offense at the federal level. There a number of different bills that we could be pursuing,” [DC lobbyist Todd] Rathner says. Most prominently among those bills is national reciprocity, which would guarantee that people with concealed-carry permits in one state could carry their guns in any other state. “A concealed carry permit would be treated like a driver’s license. When you drive across state lines, you don’t worry that your license won’t be honored. We need that for concealed weapons permits,” Rathner says.
Winkler, however, notes some potential problems with this. Reciprocity, depending on how the bill is finalized, could require a state like California to recognize a concealed carry permit issued in a state like Utah. “In Utah, you don’t have to be a resident to get a concealed carry permit,” says Winkler. “So someone who is in Los Angeles and who cannot get a concealed carry permit can go get one in Utah, and then under national reciprocity, depending on how the bill gets shaped, California would have to recognize that.”
The anti-gun Left has long tried to use Federal law to dictate gun policy to the States. Now it looks like they’re getting their wish! (For my neighbors wanting more info on Utah non-resident CCW, you can look here. 🙂 )
Throughout the campaign, these pages have been advising gun owners that they had a binary choice in this election. We weren’t kidding. We had a choice between the most ardently anti-gun candidate in Democratic Party history and the most pro-gun GOP candidate since Ronald Reagan. (Can you imagine candidates like Mitt Romney or John McCain posting pro-RKBA position papers on their websites? How about any Bush?) And now even the Left sees that we weren’t kidding.
And even if gun advocates get everything they want in the next couple of years, there’s also a good chance that Trump will get to appoint more than one Supreme Court justice. If that happens? “Well then, everything changes,” says Winkler. For years, the gun lobby’s favorite myth was that the government was coming for everyone’s guns. With the election of Trump, the inverse may be coming true. The guns are coming for the government.
And now, if you’ll excuse me, I gotta go find my shades. 😎
It ain’t fun hearing a bullet whiz past your ear. It means that you almost got your head taken off. On the upside, it does mean that you dodged one that could have taken your head off.
We dodged one of those last night.
Hillary Clinton, possibly the most anti-gun candidate in American political history, came within a hairsbreadth of winning the White House last night. While Donald Trump will come away with a commanding electoral college win (306-ish to 228-ish as I write this), Hillary won a slight majority in the popular vote. 59,408,297 people (as of 8:31 PST), damn near sent that harridan to the Oval Office. Had she gotten to that desk, your freedom to own and use whatever firearms you deem fit for your needs would have flushed down the nearest toilet.
However, this isn’t the time for gun owners to pack up and head home. The battle was won and the end of the war is in sight, but this is the GOP we’re talking about here. If anyone can rescue defeat from the jaws of victory, it’s that pack of creepy clowns. Trump has put forward a list of names for possible Supreme Court justices. Our job now is to vet these and others before they receive the consent of the Senate. (Remember that Souter and O’Connor were appointed by Republicans!) Don’t start thinking that having a little “R” behind someone’s name makes them a friend to your gun rights. We have the opportunity to reshape the Court for at least the next generation.
It’s time for the mopping up to begin.
It’s a bit of a stretch, right? Just because Chelsea Clinton believes that her mother is going to appoint anti-gun extremists to the Supreme court, that doesn’t mean that Hillary actually will. Right? And just because she’s speaking for her mother’s campaign, at an official event, that doesn’t mean this is really what’s going on inside her mother’s head. Right? I mean c’mon… Sometimes apples really do fall far from the tree. Right?
From NRA News:
It should be noted that the Senate has done its Constitutional duty with regard to the nomination of Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court. They’ve said “no”. One would expect that a con-law professor to know that the Senate’s duty is to provide advice and consent before the President may appoint someone to the high court. Its job is not to rubberstamp whatever choice the executive makes. The Senate has opted to not consent.
This shouldn’t be taken as an endorsement of any particular candidate for elective office; but, gun owners should be aware that some politicians are more friendly toward them than are others. For example, no one would mistake Hillary(!) Clinton or Bernie “Che” Sanders for pro-gun candidates. On the other hand, no one doubts where Sen. Ted Cruz stands on the 2nd Amendment. Nor should they doubt Donald Trump. Months ago, long before any primary votes had been cast, The Donald published a pro-gun position paper on his campaign website that reads like it was cribbed from one of Wayne’s speeches.
But then there’s poor John Kasich.
The Ohio governor made a profound mistake in 1994 when he was a wee Congressman: He voted for the Clinton Gun Ban. Unlike so many of his Democrat colleagues, he didn’t get swept up in the ’94 Revolution. In the years since, he hasn’t voted to support any more gun bans so one would think that his “youthful indiscretion” would have faded from memory. It hasn’t
The problem isn’t grudge holding gun owners; it’s Kasich himself. He’s never had that Come to Jesus moment where he truly expressed regret for that vote in ’94. Quite the contrary, he’s said that he hasn’t voted for new gun bans because they’re “not effective“. He’s not concerned that they’re not Constitutional, only that they lack efficiency. But this isn’t the worst part of Kasich’s Kasich problem. This is: He says that he’d consider nominating Merrick Garland to the US Supreme Court.
You read that correctly. He didn’t just criticize the Senate for refusing to look at Obama’s extremist nominee. He said he’d consider the man.
“Well, you know, he received, you know, overwhelming support, I think even from Senator Hatch, so of course we’d think about it.” Kasich went on to say that he wanted a “conservative,” leaving open the possibility that he considers the reliably liberal Garland a conservative. He then added the confusing comment, “I don’t care about their peccadillos, you know, 30 years ago.”
Open hostility toward American gun owners is hardly a “peccadillo”.
Perhaps he should… rephrase that.
I’m gonna be brutally honest here about something even though this may work against the purpose of this website. We run this site with the intent of convincing people that our arguments with regard to the right to keep and bear arms are, in fact, the correct ones. However, insulting people isn’t a good form of persuasion, no matter how right you are. That being said, I would like to point out that those wishing to disarm the American people are not the sharpest knives in the drawer.
They say that they only want to save lives. But, they are ignoring the admonition “Be careful what you wish for. You just might get it.”
As Anthony Canales notes, there are places in political and social discourse where there is no going back…
If one were to ask African-Americans about how they would feel about a repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, at the very least they would likely say that there is no going back to the days of Jim Crow and discrimination. In fact, any real attempt to re-impose the kinds of political rule that resulted in events like the Tulsa Riot of 1921 would probably be met with resistance, likely even violent resistance.
And if one were to ask the gay community about how they would feel about a repeal of reforms and court rulings that would likely mean a return to “pre-Stonewall” discrimination, they too would probably say that there is no going back on the civil rights gains by LGBT citizens in the United States. As proven in the past, resistance up to violent action would be the result of any attempt by the governing elite to deny gays the rights they have fought so hard for.
When it comes to these two core constituencies of theirs, the American Left understands that there is no going back for them. They understand that violence would result from any attempt to undo the gains these groups have won. They understand just how much these gains mean to these groups. And yet, the Left seems shocked that American gun owners not only refuse to go along with plans to disarm them, but that they would violently resist such plans.
But “shocked” isn’t the right word, is it? That implies some level of acceptance that they clearly do not have. Quite to the contrary, they refuse to see this at all and insist upon stupidly charging ahead with civilian disarmament anyway. And now, with the death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Obama’s pick to replace him, they see their wishes finally coming true. Stroke of a pen, Law of the land. All of the bad, bad guns will just go away. Right? Remember what we said about being careful about what you wish for?
They say they only want to save lives. So riddle me this: How does fomenting armed rebellion and violence achieve that end?
There is no going back.