Antis Alarmed That ACB Confirmation Could Be ‘Huge Setback for Gun Safety’

In this screen snip from live coverage of confirmation hearings on Judge Amy Coney Barrett, anti-gun Connecticut Sen. Richard Blumenthal expressed his concerns about her votes on Second Amendment issues. (YouTube, CBSN)

U.S.A.-( As the contentious confirmation hearings begin for Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett, anti-gun groups are voicing concerns she will endanger so-called “gun safety laws” and headlines in various publications perpetuate what is essentially a myth about restrictive gun control, while a George Mason University professor has just published a lengthy Liberty & Law Research Paper supporting the notion of individual gun rights and the necessity of the Second Amendment.

USA Today’s recent headline about Judge Barrett repeated the myth: “Trump Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett puts years of gun safety progress at risk.” Rights activists consider it bad enough for the media to lean left, but even worse for them to adopt the gun prohibition lobby’s vocabulary.

Mother Jones headlined its piece, “Amy Coney Barrett’s Confirmation Could Be a Huge Setback for Gun Safety Laws.”

In fact, these are not “safety” laws at all, but “controls” and the National Review just pointed readers to the 41-page paper authored by Prof. David Bernstein at George Mason University’s Antonin Scalia Law School that will raise some eyebrows.

Perhaps Bernstein’s most interesting observation for anyone who has been living in the Pacific Northwest over the past seven months is found on Page 3 of his report. It might be seen as “strong medicine” by advocates of concealed carry as an individual right.

“Yet the looting, rioting, and general mayhem on display in the Summer of 2020 in cities throughout the United States,” Bernstein writes, “often unimpeded by law enforcement, buttresses the argument that a proper right to armed self-defense must include provision for law-abiding Americans to protect themselves outside their homes.”

It’s bothersome stuff to Barrett critics who are concerned her appointment to fill the high court vacancy left by the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will open a door, if not a floodgate, for consideration of Second Amendment cases. Since 2010’s ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago—the landmark Second Amendment Foundation case that nullified Chicago’s handgun ban and more importantly incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment—the high court has rejected several gun rights cases including 10 earlier this year. Many believe it’s because Chief Justice John Roberts might not be counted on to cast a pro-rights vote. If Judge Barrett is confirmed, that worry goes away, but is replaced by another concern among gun prohibitionists that the Second Amendment will be expanded.

For gun rights advocates, it’s not a question about expansion, but of Second Amendment restoration; as SAF’s Alan Gottlieb has often explained, “Making the Second Amendment great again.”

As noted in an Oct. 10 CNN report quoting CNN Supreme Court analyst Steve Vladeck, “It seems likely that the confirmation of Judge Barrett would remove that uncertainty and open the pipeline to a flurry of cases, perhaps ranging from the constitutionality of criminal felon-in-possession statutes to large-capacity magazine bans.”

The American Bar Association has rated Judge Barrett “well qualified,” according to the Washington Times. No member contended she is not qualified, the newspaper said.

But more than 30 gun prohibition lobbying groups sent a letter to Senators Mitch McConnell, Charles Schumer, Lindsey Graham and Dianne Feinstein Oct. 8 declaring, among other things, “The Supreme Court already includes four justices who have publicly indicated an eagerness to expand the meaning of the Second Amendment in a way that is at odds with over two hundred years of American jurisprudence and long traditions of gun regulations, contradicts the meaning and purpose of the Second Amendment, and could significantly undermine gun safety laws enacted by democratically-elected legislatures across the country. This unsupported interpretation of the Constitution is not only at odds with the Framers’ vision, but with the overwhelming majority of American people who want elected officials to enact evidence based gun safety laws to address the gun violence public health crisis. Therefore, we fear that rushing this nomination would force a dangerous ‘guns everywhere’ agenda on the country — an agenda that your constituents have repeatedly rejected at the ballot box.”

And during his opening remarks, Monday, perennially anti-gun Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) expressed worries that Judge Barrett would add energy to the high court for the purpose of removing strict gun control laws.

But rights are not supposed to be subject to popular vote. That’s what makes them “rights.”

And that brings the focus back around to Prof. Bernstein’s analytical essay. The opening paragraph in his introduction says, “The individual right to keep and bear arms has two primary rationales. The first is to provide citizens with a means to oppose tyrannical government. The second is to provide citizens with a means to defend themselves, their loved ones, and their property from criminal aggression.”

Translation: It is not about hunting deer or ducks.

A few paragraphs later, Bernstein observes, “The unwillingness or inability of local authorities to stop looting, rioting, and other lawless and violent behavior is powerful evidence that, contrary to the Heller dissenter’s position, Americans still need firearms to defend themselves.:

Bernstein’s article offers a scathing criticism of authorities in the Pacific Northwest cities of Seattle and Portland.

“Perhaps the most outrageous example of local officials’ dereliction of their law enforcement duties comes from Seattle,” he writes. “For twenty-three days in June, armed leftists occupied six blocks of the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, declaring the area a “police-free” zone they called the “Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone” (‘CHAZ’), later changed to “Capitol Hill Occupied Protest” (‘CHOP’). Bands of self-appointed, gun-toting “guards” set up encampments and patrolled the area, looted stores, smashed windows, and prevented residents from leaving or visitors from entering— in the process devastating businesses located in the occupied blocks.”

Turning his attention to Portland, Bernstein added, “As of this writing…Portland has had three months of nightly riots. By June 24, only a few weeks into the riots, they had caused over $4 million in property damage and $18 million in lost revenues for Portland businesses. The city police’s efforts to defend ordinary people against the lawlessness were underwhelming at best. On August 16, for example, which marked the eightieth night of demonstrations, municipal authorities reported that over sixty 911 calls (reporting theft, vandalism, suspicious activity, hit and runs, and burglary, among other things) went unanswered.”

On Page 31 of his report, Bernstein writes, “Because the police and other law enforcement officers have been so derelict in stemming the violence that occurred in cities across the United States in the Summer of 2020, armed citizens throughout the country have taken matters into their own hands.”

Over the past several months, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, and FBI National Instant Check System data, millions of people have purchased guns for the first time in their lives. Whether this has any effect on how they vote will be determined next month.

But all of those gun sales rattle the gun prohibition lobby. They do not want another pro-Second Amendment justice on the high court. A close look will find many of these people also support efforts to “re-imagine law enforcement,” whatever that means, and reduce police department budgets, which would subsequently lead to police manpower cuts.

Bernstein focuses on this in his closing paragraphs, stating:

“In the absence of police protection, some Americans, such as those living in the CHOP zone in Seattle, were subject to a reign of terror by armed anarchists who destroyed businesses, restricted exit and entry, and used illegal force against residents. Others, either by themselves or in groups, banded together to defend their safety and their businesses via force of arms…

“In constitutional law terms,” he concludes, “all this supports the notion that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense purposes should be extended beyond the home. During this past Summer’s unrest, many Americans have either made the choice to defend themselves, or had that choice forced upon them when attacked with no viable retreat possible. Try telling them that the right to bear arms in self-defense is obsolete thanks to the police.”

It’s a scenario anti-gun Senators on the Judiciary Committee, and their cheerleaders in the gun prohibition lobby, do not care to see. That is why opposition to Judge Barrett’s confirmation is so visceral. They do not, as expressed by Sen. Blumenthal, want a Justice Barrett helping to swing the pendulum back where it belongs by chipping away at decades of gun control that has, in some cases, turned the right to keep and bear arms, into a government-regulated privilege.

About Dave WorkmanDave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Eliminating ALL Democrats would be safer for this nation than eliminating ONE GUN !


I just had to log in to give a thumbs up on this one. +++++++


I hope and pray Judge Barrett votes more with the Constitutional Guidelines than judge Kavanaugh has. Our Constitutional Confirmed, Recognized, Restated —- RIGHTS —- MUST NOT be manipulated into “governmental doled out privileges by the DemoKKKrat National communists that have WORMED their way in.


The answer should always be: OK, she’s not good for your politics. What bearing does that have on whether or not she’s qualified for the job?

Country Boy

ACB bad for gun safety? IMO she will be good for gun safety. If she’s a SCOTUS Judge, my guns will be very safe. Unlike Joe and Kamala’s stance.


Silly democrats, if court is not packed judge Barrett WILL advance gun safety. I don’t understand their babel at all.

It will be nice to have my guns safe again. Some of them like little babies needing to be tucked in at night to stave off nightmares of Bloomberg, pelosi, roBerto and finestein. Have drawn the line shy of singing them lullabies as the loud music of gunfire is so much prettier than any singing I could ever do.


Right Will. She will help make our guns safer from politicians. “Gun safety” like so many other words and phrases has been completely twisted to mean the opposite of its literal meaning.
Just as “gun control” means maintaining accuracy in rapid fire – keeping the gun under control through recoil. “Gun safety” means providing rust prevention, not letting your kids use pistol as a hammer, and preventing infringement on 2A. That last part is where ACB comes in.


Okay, so these esteemed senators and others want more gun safety laws? Let’s give it to them. How about legislating the four (or is it five?) gun safety rules, as inculcated into us enthusiasts, into Federal law? Surely, there is nothing unconstitutional about that.


The fact that Commies are going to commie shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Feed them fishheads.


Who really want to handle buckets of fishheads? One way elevator rides…..

uncle dudley

Senator Feinstein asked judge Barrett if she owned a gun and her response was we have one in our home.
These democrats are trying to make the judge look bad at every turn and it’s not working, get this circus over and vote her on the court and let’s move on.


I think you meant to write “civilian” instead of citizen. There are plenty of “armed citizens” in those buildings every day 24 hours a day. There are ways of co-opting people. And, where there is will, there is a way.


However, being a federal judge, it can be argued that she is not a private citizen; having already taken the oath of office and been sworn in.

So its not outside the possibility of any of those public servants breaking the rules, which we have to follow, they it do so very often.


Too bad ACB couldn’t ask Feinstein after answering her, “Why? Don’t you? Is it because you have armed bodyguards watching over your useless stinking carcass?”


The so called “Firearm Safety Laws” Senator Blumenthal was referring to are unconstitutional. The State of Connecticut continues to enact restrictive measures to law abiding firearm owners. However, Senator Blumenthal and his constitutes in the State Legislature have never proposed legislation for extended prison terms for criminals arrested on weapon possession charges. The fact is Democrats pander to criminals in exchange for their vote.

Judge ACB will be a fantastic addition to the Supreme Court. I hope the Connecticut Assault Weapon ban is brought to the Supreme Court with SCJ ACB on the bench.


If you honestly BELIEVE in the scope and purpose of the second amendment, you would recant from any position about crimes of “weapons possession”. Who is the victim? Where is the “crime”? Without a VICTIM there can be no real crime.


Carry a handgun in CT without a CT issued permit, and you will be arrested on a felony charge. That’s a “real crime” as per CT law.

Last edited 2 years ago by JoseyWales

Of course they are.
A would be tyrant always seeks to disarm the populace.


Try MILLIONS. Of course you can’t see that many, but I can assure you there are MILLIONS wearing face diapers and making themselves ill doing so. If I think of all the tyranny that has been going on since I was born and the lack of resistance, I laugh whenever I hear someone mentioning “land of the free and home of the brave”. Should be land of the FEE and home of the SLAVE. INCOME TAX which is adminstered exactly as the 2nd plank of the COMMUNIST MANIFESTO states it, is one that comes to mind. SLAVERY is SLAVERY no… Read more »


She will be a great Justice. Personally, I am one of millions of Americans that always exercise my 2A. However, I have not worn a mask since day one.


I saw a comment earlier and I couldn’t agree more. There wasn’t a person in that room thaw was even worthy of washing ACB s feet. She is intellectually head and shoulders above that entire room.


“Therefore, we fear that rushing this nomination would force a dangerous ‘guns everywhere’ agenda on the country — an agenda that your constituents have repeatedly rejected at the ballot box.”

Aka the “Hair On Fire, We’re All Gonna Die” contingent.

Green Mtn. Boy

Pearl clutching time.



The problem is, she stated that she felt there was room for restrictions on the 2nd. I wonder what part of “Shall not be infringed” she doesn’t understand.


@Hoss – Not holding my breath, but “room for restrictions” is probably applied to the literal meaning of the amendment. As in not allowing individuals to keep nuclear weapons inside of cities without notifying their neighbors of radiation hazards. That would be an infringement and I would actually be comfortable allowing a wee bit more infringement than that. Heck I’d even be alright with legal restrictions on how much plutonium an individual may have. So I may worry what she means, for me it is not a totally disqualify statement. As Mr Workman states – what other option do we… Read more »

Get Out

If the anti-gunners are alarmed, they should be ashamed of themselves too. Their B.S. gun control agenda has prompted millions of new gun owners. They boast about restrictions and outright bans on guns and ammunition instead of criminal control. Eff’em.