Second Amendment Silver Linings from the Midterms

Opinion

The Supreme Court as composed April 10, 2017, to July 31, 2018. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Stephen G. Breyer. Back row: Associate Justice Elena Kagan, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch. Credit: Franz Jantzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court as composed April 10, 2017, to July 31, 2018.
Credit: Franz Jantzen, Collection of the Supreme Court of the United States

New York – -(AmmoLand.com)- We’ve looked at the bad news from 2018 a lot, especially given the loss of the House, which means that a nightmare will run the House Judiciary Committee for at least the next two years. But while there are some significant threats, there are also some big pieces of good news we can take from 2018.

One of the biggest silver linings is the control of the Senate not only stayed in GOP hands, but it has also increased by two seats. The judicial nominations that have been cruising the last two years will continue at this point. This is crucial as the judges could eventually lead to overturning onerous gun laws in states like California and New York.

The increased control of the Senate also provides a bulwark against any gun control laws that emerge from the House. How much of a bulwark? Even Susan Collins of Maine, arguably the most moderate Republican in the Senate, has been on record voting against gun bans and the rest of the Bloomberg-Schumer-Feinstein agenda. She’s at worst a very solid vote on Second Amendment issues.

This provides a devastating 1-2 punch against those trying to take away our Second Amendment rights. New federal legislation will go nowhere, and there will be more judges who understand the meaning of “shall not be infringed.”

Another more long-term silver lining is in Illinois. Yes, it looks as if onerous gun laws will likely be rammed through. However, Illinois resides in the Seventh Circuit, and this is where we could very well see a challenge to a semi-auto ban force its way to the Supreme Court.

Here’s how: In the Ninth and Fourth Circuits, panel decisions that struck down anti-Second Amendment laws were overturned in en banc hearings. In the Ninth Circuit, it meant a larger panel, while in the Fourth, it was the entire court. Both were dominated by anti-gun judges. The terrain in the Seventh Circuit is much friendlier.

Of the 11 active judges on that court, nine were appointed by Reagan, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, or President Trump. The three senior judges include one Ford appointee and two Reagan appointees. There is a very good chance that the en banc panel could very well uphold a ruling that shoots down a semi-auto ban on Second Amendment grounds, creating a circuit split. That split would force the Supreme Court to take up the case.

With the current line-up of the Supreme Court, there is a very good chance that the resulting decision would strike down a semi-auto ban and therefore place the Second Amendment on a much stronger legal footing. It’s a bit of a gamble, but President Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have been a well-oiled machine on judicial nominations, and by the time such a case reaches, we could see a court more decisively shifted in favor of the Second Amendment.

One other silver lining over the long term will be that a Democratic House will shake some Second Amendment supporters out of their post-2016 complacency. The fact is, complacency is one of the biggest threats we have to our Second Amendment rights. We never could just let the politicians and NRA do it on their own – they need constant back-up from we the people.

We can mourn the losses and missed opportunities of 2018, but let’s also look at some of the good news that came from these midterms. Then get ready for 2020.


Harold Hu, chison

About Harold Hutchison

Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.

  • 20 thoughts on “Second Amendment Silver Linings from the Midterms

    1. This is to get the word out.

      Ladies and Gentlemen, prior to December 7th 2018, a commentor known as “Ron” got in an argument on this article(Linked Below) because he felt his opinion should replace facts. He lost the argument in glorious fashion.

      https://www.ammoland.com/2018/12/engineering-professor-calls-handgun-ban/#axzz5ZF1NUs35

      On December the 7th, he launched into a tirade about how no one was talking about Pearl Harbor even as we remembered with our families. He then attempted to use the deaths of the men and women at pearl harbor to attack those that had previously embarrassed him during his argument. Let this be a record of that until he issues a public apology to the Families of the men and women who died on that day for his shameful act of using them for his own personal gain.

      Further, As Ron continued to avoid comments calling out his actions he became only able to try and sling the weakest insults while trying to claim them as a result of his matchless wit. He is particularly fond of, in his own words, his “Two finger typing technique.” As this continued Ron engaged in another piece of hypocrisy connected to the original rebutle against his argument that I had stated.

      My comment was along these lines: “We remember pearl harbor. We just dont feel the need to yell about it repeatedly to try and tell other people how great we are for doing it.”

      Ron continued trying to tell us how he is the only reason people remember the anniversary of the attack. And then he dropped this gem after being called out for the aforementioned shameful actions. In a reply to one of my comments after he lost his cool Ron said this….

      Ron: “Glorious fashion…? Good Lord, here we go again. You wouldn’t hammer about it if you knew you were right.”

      Uh oh Ron… Isn’t that kind of like hammering on about how people who remember a somber anniversary of an insidious sneak attack in silence “Didn’t remember December the 7th until you said something about it”? If, according to Ron’s own standard he knew he was right, he wouldn’t have had to try and keep bringing it up all of that friday and into saturday when I finally called him out for it. In response to this I asked Ron to answer a simple question. “Why the 180?”

      As of this moment Ron has neither offered an Apology to the families of those who lost loved ones in the attack on Pearl Harbor, nor has he answered a simple little question about his hypocrisy.

      Do you support his use of servicemen losing their lives for his own benefit?

    2. We have to start thinking in terms of “sanctuary gun zones,” just like the Left has its “Sanctuary” cities and states to protect illegal immigrants.

      When the Left wants something, it just declares the moral high ground, and says the hell with the law or the Constitution, …we’re gonna do what we want, and f*** you.

      At least we actually have the Bill of Rights on our side. We need to take the mealy mouth lawyers (“it depends on what the definition of is, is”) and tell them to stuff the legal games back up where they came from. We know what the Constitution says and means and we’re not going to have it stolen by Deep State parasites, legal weasels, and wannabe one party state dictators and their Hollywood fluffers.

      If you want a good explanation of how we got here, search “How Tyranny came to America”, by the late Joseph Sobran.

    3. I have a doubt about Kavanaugh since he and Roberts voted not to hear the case against Planned Parenthood. Roberts has shown he is a pushover and Kavanaugh is following his foot steps. It doesn’t look very promising for Constitutional rights. I guess when you get to that ivory tower all of a sudden you are a law maker rather than a Justice to uphold the laws.

      1. @tomcat The word is that Kavanaugg looked at the CT law and said that it says they have to pay, BUT the federal law states that NO federal funds can be used for abortion. Seems like he did not look far enough into the laws on the books!

        1. @ Maco Thanks for the info, I didn’t catch the whole discussion. Of course, just the last part so I may have judged him prematurely. Federal Funds are being used big time for abortions, just hid behind something else. I would think a pill would be a better alternative and less abuse on the body, if you are smart enough to take a pill.

        2. But liberals despite the law, bring up women’s health rights. And they also call upon Roe v Wade. Both of which I happen to agree with. And they will also say that it is something that is a topic that is between the woman and her Doctor. Again I agree with. And I am a staunch Republican. But I am not a republican who thinks that this topic is something that belongs in the political world to the extent that this is something that a ‘True conservative would have to be against. ” ib order to get elected.
          But the liberals have a point when it comes to this matter. The Federal Government should not withhold any money for any abortion or the RIGHT of a WOMAN to have one. They started this ban when Congress started to have women in the military full time. And well you know. Man and woman meet, and naturally after a while the birds and the bees… and if at the time (until the 70’s early 80’s) if the female got pregnant she was forced out of the military. Then Roe came along, and well from what I read (and no I don’t have a link because I read this in the late 80’s early 90’s in a book. ) the incidents of pregnancy went up, and the incidents of abortions went up as well. That’s why the law. And the rest is what they call “overflow” because it not only effects females in the military, but also the the female spouses, and well outside organizations that receive federal funding. Do you know what it takes for a spouse of a military member to receive one? I know what it took my doctors to get a “just in case ‘ approval for one. And they started the day I found out I was pregnant. Even doctor I had (30 at the time) went to Congress and petitioned the armed services committee. At the time I was lucky I had at least 2 congressmen who were from my state on that. One of which was Glenn. And after I answered several questions over several phone calls from the committee members and several months. They said if it came down to it I had permission to have an abortion, BUT I had to have it the same place where those Doctors were. That was 25 years and 5 months ago today. My ‘baby’ turned 25 today. Even though my Doctors they didn’t recommend that I carry to term. Imagine what someone who doesn’t have 30 doctors on her side, and my time frame was fast it normally takes up to 8 months for approval. Mine only took 4.

    4. The Supreme Court does not have the appetite to hear any 2nd Amendment cases. They will let all lower court ruling stand and you know what that means for our constitutional right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed”.

    5. I like the author’s optimism and hope his reasoning holds true. Unfortunately, I believe it will only hold until the next major government sponsored and initiated mass shooting incident. You can bet that when that goes down, many politicians who we thought were on our side will knuckle under to the emotion and media coverage, not logic and reason.

    6. Sure wish the biased shriveled up old left wing cockroach on the lower left of the image would do us all a favor and just die. She is holding out hoping for a liberal Democrat to win the presidency before she resigns–that is how biased she really is.

    7. GreenMtnBoy

      I concur. Roberts and Kavanaugh are two peas in a pod. Roberts has proven he is not trustworthy at least twice. I was actually hoping the liberals would win regarding Kavanaugh’s appointment, just for different reasons.

    8. Not holding my breath as SCROTUM has at the very least two weak links,for the court to actually uphold the Constitution,those swing votes as I see it are Roberts and Kavanaugh.

      1. GreenMtnBoy

        I concur. Roberts and Kavanaugh are two peas in a pod. Roberts has proven he is not trustworthy at least twice. I was actually hoping the liberals would win regarding Kavanaugh’s appointment, just for different reasons.

      2. I am more concerned about Roberts than Kavanaugh.
        Roberts has always been a ‘when it suits me. ‘ 2a guy.
        And Kavanaugh so far has at a lower level has used Heller to blast a case even if was a(as I recall) in decent to the final ruling. And he was drilled relentely by the Democrats about the 2AMENDMENT when he was being confirmed the 1st time. Yes I watched the entire thing, it was a very slow week. Even the 2nd ‘test of his integrity’. And I have some personal thoughts on what to do with the people who orchestrated that. But that is a conversation for another day.
        But I don’t think that Kavanaugh will let you and I down if the SCOTUS takes on a 2AMENDMENT case. Which I hope they do. And I hope that the 1st one comes from either California or New Jersey, or better still New York Bloomberg’s hometown.

    9. HR 38 has been in committee for exactly a year. Call out all the committee members on social media which they monitor more closely and is visible to the press. They will be going on winter break soon. McConnell might pull out a Christmas miracle. National reciprocity is the closest it will ever get right now otherwise it won’t happen.

    10. HR 38 will die in a few days unless the Senate “leaders” will bring it to the floor.
      Chuckie Schumer and Nancy Pelosi cannot block it, only RINOS can do that.

      Let’s give Chuckie a present that will eat at his craw for because once HR 38 is a law he can’t repeal it.

      Call the White House and the Senate today.

    11. Any person that is trying to take away the Constitutional rights of law abiding American citizens who own guns to protect themselves and their families is absolutely an enemy of America, the Constitution and of liberty and freedom, and should be treated like the domestic terrorist that they are.

    Leave a Comment 20 Comments