The Court-Packing Threat to the Second Amendment

The Roberts Court, November 30, 2018. Seated, from left to right: Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Samuel A. Alito. Standing, from left to right: Justices Neil M. Gorsuch, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Brett M. Kavanaugh. Photograph by Fred Schilling, Supreme Court Curator’s Office.

Washington, D.C. – -( You might think that with the confirmation of two pro-Second Amendment justices under President Donald Trump, that the Second Amendment is reasonably safe. Well, think again. Those who would seek to take our rights away are not going to just give up. In fact, they have a new plan to deal with a pro-Second Amendment majority on the Supreme Court.

Their plans are very simple: To pack the court – adding at least two, if not more, seats to that body. One progressive group is calling for the addition of four seats, given the uncertain health status of Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg creates a new opening on the high court. Who fills those seats?

You can bet that those openings will be filled by justices who will not only rubber stamp all sorts of anti-Second Amendment laws, but ones who will also overturn rulings that have protected free speech during political campaigns and uphold Andrew Cuomo’s abuses against the NRA. It is also a safe bet that any new justice picked will be relatively young – able to serve for 30 years or more. Three decades of horrible rulings on our right to keep and bear arms. The implications are simply staggering.

The absolute worst case would be to see this packed court overturn the Heller and McDonald decisions. In essence, it would buy the nonsense that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to militias – defined as the National Guard. In Florida, a proposed ballot initiative for the 2020 election could very well be a test case for this sort of claim.

Not only does that initiative encompass a sweeping ban on semi-automatic firearms, it features a ban on any magazine holding more than seven rounds. It also bans “sniper rifles” – a term left very vague but leaving open the possibility of banning a typical bolt-action rifle. There would be a one-year “grace period” to turn them in or become a felon. Furthermore, one can lose their gun rights over two domestic abuse emergency calls. Not convictions, not arrest, merely investigations. It would not matter if you were cleared or if the calls were false alarms.

At first glance, this is the type of thing that would be very likely to be tossed out, with the court citing Heller and McDonald, at least with the current composition of the court. If President Trump replaces Ginsburg with another justice who supports the Second Amendment, it would be a foregone conclusion that we would see this stricken down. But these cases can take time to get to the Supreme Court – years even.

So, what could be today’s Supreme Court with a 5-4 pro-Second Amendment majority could be a Supreme Court with an 8-5 anti-Second Amendment majority if some of these extremists get their way. That changes the entire legal landscape. Think about Kamala Harris, or Elizabeth Warren, or some of the other anti-Second Amendment zealots already running for the Presidency – and who they might select.

What can be done to avoid this? In this, there is good news: The Supreme Court’s composition can only be changed by an act of Congress. That happens either through the House and Senate passing a bill, and the President signing it, or the House and Senate passing the bill over a veto. This means there is time, but also danger. Time is there, since the 2020 Senate map is somewhat favorable to pro-Second Amendment candidates, but if the election goes bad, the danger is that the Senate could fall into anti-Second Amendment hands.

The chance to pack the Supreme Court could lead Charles Schumer to nuke the filibuster completely if he has the majority in the Senate. In short, it would be a drastic shift in the landscape – one from which the Second Amendment would not likely recover from.

The fact is, control of the White House and Senate over the next 12 years could very well decide whether or not the Second Amendment survives. It is best to make sure that they are controlled by pro-Second Amendment officials.

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,, and other national websites.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
John Phelps

The reason we the people have the Second Amendment Rights was to protect us against the people that make the laws, when will people of the United States of America understand what’s going to happen if they can take that right away from us, (we the people) some just don’t understand


What was once said ” the demoncrats are coming,the demoncrats are coming “


Democrats are sexist.

Current US Code says that all men 17 to 45 are a part of the unorganized militia, as well as women in the National Guard…

If Democrats have their way and change the 2nd Amendment to only apply to “the militia” then only women in the National guard would be able to “bare arms”! Where as ALL men 17 45 would still be able to! Hence, most women would not be armed!

It sounds to me like Democrats WANT to victimize women, and want more women unarmed!

Tommy Andersen

Two words. Civil War. Prepare and be ready.

No body cares

These people are the enemy. Make no mistake . they need to be locked up for treason right now for even talking about such laws . who are they to get in a room and conspire to disarm us. The time for just putting up with this has passed. We should show up armed and remove these traitors. Arrest them and give them trial. Sick state of affairs.


No reasonable person is looking to remove second amendment rights. There are some common sense things we can do to make sure that it’s harder for kids to get their hands on guns (unsupervised) and require that a person is mentally functional before selling them a weapon. One of the biggest problems when it comes to guns is a lack of responsibility. Parents who don’t have a gun safe and keep their gun in a drawer their kid can reach, and uncles who have a whole armory that’s not under lock and key. These things can be resolved (to some… Read more »

Gary Marcum

The key to your comment is, “no reasonable person.”


Who determines responsible person


I am an American. A gun owner. And a former GOP party member. If any of you still vote GOP and think like the incompetent ass that wrote this piece that the only way to save gun rights or rights in general afforded by the constitution is voting GOP then you are wildly ill informed. Conservative American politicians are ripping your rights out from under you with your approval they are also robbing you blind. Wake up. Read. Research.


Does that mean we should vote ‘Democrat’?
As in the only other viable party that is an avowed bunch of anti-2nd amendment, gun-grabbers?

Methinks you believe we’re so stupid we believe that propaganda.,


A sentence has an subject and a predicate now we all know that the subject comes at the beginning of a sentence now if you look at the first part of the sentence it says a well regulated militia the well-regulated militia is the subject anything else in that sentence is the predicate explaining about the subject with is the well regulated militia then yes the Second Amendment only applies people apart of a well regulated militia because that is the subject of the Second Amendment so maybe I need to go back to school and learn about sentence structure


To understand the 2nd amendment one must read and discover the Founding Father’s intent for writing the amendment. It was that the people remained armed for protection from a tyrannical government. You need to go back and study some history that your schooling failed to provide.



Heed the Call-up

Corey, point-blank, no pun intended, you are 100% wrong. You need to look at the way the sentence is written and understand the history and intent as to why the 2A was written. As far as your grammar lesson, yes, you are wrong about that, too. You need to learn about sentence structure if you really believe what you wrote. Based on your logic, the 2A would be about the people’s RKBA if it was written, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security… Read more »

Roy D.

Corey: Having read that hot mess you wrote, you are the last person who should be giving advice on how to write anything or how to interpret a written passage. But you keep on being you.


Yes, you DO need to go back and learn sentence structure. Your hash of a run-on sentence displays your ignorance.


The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ constitutes a present participle, not a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence ‘the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.’ (subject ‘the right’, verb ‘shall’).

Google The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman for the English language breakdown and confirmation of meaning.

jack velten

I have never bought a gun. I have never tried to. However i have fired many different kinds, 30-06, 30 30, and my favorite, 35 Marlin lever action. If it looks like they are going to pack the court or pass a law taking away my right to bear arms then they will have made a non gin owner into a multiple gun owner and at least one that is not bought legally so they know what kind and how many guns I have. They should not make 50 million law abiding citizens felons, I truly believe it is a… Read more »