Fundamental Court Transformation Removes Choices for Gun Owners except Obey or Not

By David Codrea

ScreenHunter_01 Sep. 06 15.54
Obama and Garland: Anyone think the Gun-grabber-in-Chief is interested in giving firearm owner rights advocates a fighting chance in court? Anyone? Bueller? (Photo: The White House)
AmmoLand Gun News
AmmoLand Gun News

USA –  -(Ammoland.com)-  “Senate Republicans are refusing to hold a hearing for President Obama's nominee Chief Judge Merrick Garland,” the White House complains, presenting its (public) case to move confirmation hearings along. “It will be harmful and create unsustainable uncertainty if Congress fails to act on the President's nominee.”

Who it will be harmful to and left uncertain for is left unstated. One thing we can reasonably surmise is, if Garland is confirmed, a deadlock on the Supreme Court will be broken, and the 5 – 4 majority that gave gun owners wins in Heller and McDonald will be reversed.

Hogwash,” cry “progressives” who hate guns, hate gun owners, and especially hate anything that would challenge their totalitarian monopoly of violence dreams. They want us to believe suspecting Garland of sympathy for “gun control” is based purely on unwarranted speculation, as if Obama would entertain nominating a conservative. Egalitarianism may be something they pretend to stump for on the campaign trail, but when it comes to the most equitable power-sharing arrangement yet devised by man (womyn?), the collectivists suddenly lose trust in their beloved proletariat and opt for their time-honored police state.

Do we really have to settle for the unconvincing rebuttal that Garland hasn't directly decided a 2A case and that we can't read his mind? Anybody want to flip that coin? Besides the Democrats? And why does the contention come off with all the believability of a Bart Simpson denial?

There is a way around the impasse, and while it may not be consistent with the way things have traditionally been done, there’s no law against Merrick Garland exercising his First Amendment rights as a private citizen to tell us where he stands philosophically on RKBA. Nominees generally are given a pass in hearings for the excuse they don’t want to prejudice any appeals that may come before them — but since when do job applicants (outside of government) get hired if they refuse to even generally disclose their thoughts on conflicts they will be responsible for resolving?

In short, not just Garland, but any candidate for a federal judgeship, ought to be expected to disclose answers to fundamental questions:

  • Do you believe the Second Amendment articulates an individual right?
  • Should Second Amendment cases be considered under strict scrutiny?
  • Does the legal concept “in common use at the time,” at a minimum, apply to weaponry carried by infantry soldiers for battlefield use, in addition to those commonly used for self-defense and sport.

If they don’t wish to answer to We the People (or to our representatives) on those points, I understand the car wash is hiring.

It is with the lower courts that some of the most damaging decisions have been made, in many cases decisions allowed to stand simply because the Supreme Court chose not to hear an appeal. And these courts are increasingly dangerous places, as another “under the radar” Democrat objective — one enabled by Republican Senate squishes — may have already rendered justice for gun owners unobtainable.

“When Obama entered the Oval Office, liberal judges controlled just one of the 13 circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals,” The Daily Signal notes. “Fifty-five successful presidential nominations later, liberal majorities now control nine of those appeals benches, or 70 percent.”

Obama and Hillary Clinton
Who thinks either of these creatures want unsupportive judges?

What chance will gun owners have if Hillary, who has already told us she disagrees with earlier rulings, wins? She will then fill not just the Scalia vacancy on SCOTUS, but also other vacancies that will surely arise on the high court and all the lower ones. She’ll conceivably get that number into the 90 percent bracket – especially if pro-amnesty / ”pathway to citizenship” GOP turncoats succeed in helping her create an overwhelming Democrat supermajority.

Those crying “Molon Labe!” may just get their wish, although it does make fair the question:

Wouldn’t it be easier to vote first, for the only person with a chance of beating Hillary, and see if these potential nominees can make a difference?

—–

Also see:Disorder in the Court.”

David Codrea in his natural habitat.

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating / defending the RKBA and a long-time gun rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament.

In addition to being a field editor/columnist at GUNS Magazine and associate editor for Oath Keepers, he blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

  • 10
    Leave a Reply

    Please Login to comment
    3 Comment threads
    7 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    7 Comment authors
    David CodreaTom GlassWild BilltrumpedDon Quinby Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    trumped
    Guest
    trumped

    In the short term, we can all vote for trump to stop this problem. It is basically an even race now and the only thing hurting trump are gop types refusing to vote for him – he is doing great with dems and independents.

    In the long term though, we will simply have to nullify and refuse to comply with any unconstitutional law.

    Janek
    Guest
    Janek

    Occasionally you hear ‘Leftists’ defend things on the basis of it being ‘settled case law’. As many times as the 2nd Amendment has been before the Supreme Court you would think it is in fact ‘settled law’?

    Tom Glass
    Guest
    Tom Glass

    I have concluded that not only is the current (not to mention, future) SCOTUS not saving our liberty, it is an actual enemy of liberty. I think we have to fall back to state and local constitutional enforcement. Every official in government at all levels and in all branches has to swear to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. They do not swear to gut the Constitution just because 5 of 9 supreme court justices say it is OK. If you are a state or local official, especially in law enforcement, to honor your… Read more »

    Clark Kent
    Guest
    Clark Kent

    Catch a clue; the feds have more power than the states, just as the state has more power than local governments. You have the power ladder bass ackwards. A state arresting and sending a federal employee to state court for committing an ‘unconstitutional act’ would cause the U.S. Marshals or the National Guard to arrive pronto.

    Don Quinby
    Guest
    Don Quinby

    Clark Kent, you are certainly not a Superman, just sayin,,

    trumped
    Guest
    trumped

    You mean like when wisconsin nullified the fugitive slave act?

    Wild Bill
    Guest
    Wild Bill

    @CK, The federal government is not supposed to have more power than the states. The federal government is supposed to be a government of limited authorities, and all police powers are reserved to the states. The various judicial fictions propagated over the years is only one of the corruptions of a grasping federal government. I am not sure what you have in mind when you write, “A state arresting and sending a federal employee to state court for committing an ‘unconstitutional act’ would cause the U.S. Marshals or the National Guard to arrive…” but as a general rule agents of… Read more »

    Tom Glass
    Guest
    Tom Glass

    Wild Bill, I agree that the feds will try to remove cases to federal court if the states arrest an oath breaking federal agent. For example, when Lon Horiuchi, under the employ of the FBI, murdered Vickie Weaver at Ruby Ridge, the state of Idaho arrested him for murder. The feds removed the case to federal court and the charges went away. Those seeking to enforce the constitution via state action have to prepare for that removal tactic. The stance of the local officials must be, you can remove the case, but you will not remove the prisoner. Of, more… Read more »

    Tom Glass
    Guest
    Tom Glass

    Clark Kent, the whole point of the article was what are we going to do when the supreme court allows the feds to violate the Constitution and try to take our guns. I think the answer for the vast majority of those reading David Codrea and Ammoland is that we will resist. There is no question that when we resist that the feds will push back. The only question is how effective our resistance will be. Will we resist and be picked off one at a time, or will we resist pitting the power of our local law enforcement and… Read more »