Biden’s SCOTUS Nominee Judge Jackson and the Gun Industry

By Larry Keane

Justice iStock-1245041394
President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer gives him his first chance to put a lasting stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court. IMG: iStock-1245041394

U.S.A. -( President Joe Biden’s nomination of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to replace retiring Justice Stephen Breyer gives him his first chance to put a lasting stamp on the U.S. Supreme Court. Judge Jackson, who was only recently elevated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, has authored just two opinions on the merits, both in the past month. Her judicial record tells us truly little about her views on the Second Amendment or about the firearm industry.

Unlike Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who openly told the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee that her family is a gun-owning family and openly advocated for originalism on the court, Judge Jackson doesn’t offer similar insights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh dissented on a D.C. Court of Appeals decision to uphold a ban on most semiautomatic firearms and a firearm registration requirement in Washington, D.C. Justice Neil Gorsuch, an outdoorsman and hunter, was introduced as an originalist jurist and “very much in the mold” of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

Her Record

Judge Jackson would undeniably be paving a new path if she is confirmed. She would be the first African-American woman to serve on the Supreme Court. When it comes to gun rights, her judicial experience and philosophy are less obvious. Judge Jackson could be expected to be in the ideological mold of the justice she is to replace, Justice Breyer for whom she clerked from 1999-2000. When it comes to firearms and gun rights, Justice Breyer was certainly no ally of gun rights.

Justice Breyer dissented on Heller and MacDonald, and holds views that are hostile to individual Second Amendment rights. Justice Breyer once claimed the Founding Fathers intended for government to strictly regulate firearms, though no legislative evidence shows this. In fact, the first gun control laws were openly racist and intended to deny guns to slaves. The Atlantic, a liberal news publication, pointed out that in 1640, Virginia had laws on the books preventing Blacks from owning guns. In 1712, a law for a total ban on Black gun ownership was enacted to prevent slave revolts. Slave Codes were renamed Black Codes during the post-Civil War reconstruction era and those were racist laws designed to suppress recently freed Blacks.

Still, Judge Jackson’s judicial record affords no direct insights into how she might rule on Second Amendment-related or firearm industry-related cases. An opinion she authored in her eight months on the D.C. Court of Appeals was published just one day before her nomination. That case related to unions and the federal government. The closest case that Judge Jackson related to firearms was Baisden v. Barr, in which she dismissed the complaint of a convicted felon petitioning to reclaim gun rights. The plaintiff offered no evidence that he ever owned a firearm, obtained a permit, ever used, intended to use, or expressed a desire to possess a firearm prior to his conviction.

Her Philosophy

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton directly asked Judge Jackson about the Second Amendment when she was nominated to the D.C. Court of Appeals. Her answer was similar to Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who both stated that they would be bound by Heller’s precedent. Little more was said.

Gun rights advocates would disagree that both Justices Kagan and Sotomayor respect individual gun rights, especially after hearing their questions to the pending New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Corlett hearing. Justice Kagan posed the question of whether Heller put a “stamp of approval” on certain gun control measures. Justice Sotomayor said she couldn’t “get past all that history” of gun regulations.

While Justice Barrett openly embraced her ideas on originalism and how that informs her judicial philosophy, Judge Jackson has been ambiguous on her answers of a “living Constitution” approach. Professor Jonathan Turley, the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, wrote in The Hill that Judge Jackson told the courts she didn’t believe in the concept when nominated to the district court. Later, when she was nominated to the appellate court, she told the Senate she didn’t have the experience to make such interpretations as a judge.

Professor Turley was baffled by that response since it wasn’t a question of her signed opinions but her judicial opinion on how the Constitution should be interpreted. Judge Jackson has been overruled for judicial overreach. There’s proof she’s willing to engage in legislating from the bench when faced with questions she doesn’t like.

Her Critics

When President Biden nominated her last year to the Court of Appeals, the National Review wrote that Judge Jackson is, “not highly regarded as a judge” and was, “considered to have a middling reputation.” The article added that Judge Jackson has, “a striking record of reversals by the [Court of Appeals for the] D.C. Circuit—including by liberal judges—in her high-profile rulings.”

Professor Turley noted that as a district court judge she was reversed in 2018 by a unanimous decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in a federal workers’ collective bargaining case based on lack of jurisdiction and again overruled in an immigration case in 2019 for judicial overreach.

Carrie Severino, President of Judicial Crisis Network, wrote for Fox News that Judge Jackson would be little more than a politician in robes for liberal special-interest causes. She said Judge Jackson’s nomination is, “paying back the liberal Arabella Advisors dark money network” that was instrumental in President Biden’s campaign. “Since it comports with a strategy of moderate rhetoric/radical substance, expect to hear little from Biden and his supporters about Judge Jackson’s past advocacy for terrorists, softness on crime, upholding racial preferences, hostility toward pro-lifers, and reversed decisions involving Trump-era policies.”

There’s nothing to indicate that Judge Jackson will strictly interpret the Constitution. She will be what President Biden wants – a secure replacement for Justice Breyer. When it comes to gun rights and the industry, that’s what America can expect. Judge Jackson will be a solid vote against the Second Amendment and the firearm industry.

There’s just one other thing that won’t change. Should Judge Jackson be confirmed, the composition of the Supreme Court remains the same, currently a 6-3 conservative majority.

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit

National Shooting Sports Foundation

Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Green Mtn. Boy

If one can not interpret the Constitution as written then they are not qualified to be a judge let alone a USSC justice, beyond filling the criteria of race gender and of course being a Marxist


at some point court will need to be cleaned and constitutionality of laws reviewed BIG JOB


GMB – I didn’t give ya a thumbs up even though I agree with the gist of your comment. My reason is because the Constitution is NOT subject to ‘interpretation’ – it says clearly what it means in simple terms. One of the raps on the Articles of Confederation was that it was too steeped in ‘legalese’ and not in layman’s terms.
That ‘interpretation’ concept is what anti-Constitutional types use to try to morph it into the ‘living’ document’ so they can make it say whatever they want it to.


This is what happens when you make staffing decisions based on race or sex.

The Left constantly accuses just about anyone of being racist, sexist, bigots or worse.

Look in the mirror.


social climbers dont care how they get where they are

uncle dudley

This is just an affirmative action appointment nothing more.
Not the best candidate that could have been picked for the court.
Any responsible jurist who believes in the constitution would not want to be selected because of their skin color.


It’s all we can expect from Quid Pro, commie joe. Just a look at his staff and VP. Picks based on skin color, what team they bat for, and other talents they may possess. ie. the current vp. brown certainly falls short of being a responsible constitutional jurist. Commie joe padding the box with yet another constitution hater.

Last edited 8 months ago by macdog

Justice Beyer was a liar and violated his oath to the constitution. That makes him the problem and not part of the solution . I am sure judge Jackson will be the same Marxist liberal gaslighting trash she is replacing in judge Beyer !


SCOTUS is not 6-3 majority conservative. There are three hardcore liberals plus Roberts leaning left and moving further that direction – making court pretty much balanced. Worse, the affirmative action hire is young and if confirmed would remain unfettered on the bench for a very long time.

if she could right such extreme opinions knowing high courts would be reviewing, how much restraint would she exhibit on the top court?

Wild Bill

Kavanaugh leans left, too, and is similarly unreliable. IMHO.


I nominate Judge Roy Bean and Judge Isaac Parker!

Wild Bill

Judge Judy!


Damn skippy!


After reading of the ambiguities of this WOMAN, she cannot sit on the Supreme Court and give an HONEST OPINION based ON-THE-CONSTITUTION! DENIE her placement!! It IS NOT the PAID JOB of a SERVANT to “make laws from the bench”. LAW MAKING IS the paid servant jobs in “congress”. NOT bureaucracies such as ‘FTA(biden – atf) or ‘osha’!

Wild Bill

Her appointment is in the hands of the Senate. Pressure them.


Democrats have the numbers to confirm her


1) the republicans can deny her the seat by PREVENTING A QUORA .

if the republicans show up and provide the cover of a quorum she’s in. This appointment can be denied but the rupublicans need to the guts to NOT SHOW UP……….so likely she makes it onto the court.


2) Wild Bill……..Judge Judy is a dem rabid anti gunner…….fyi


Look. She was nominated by a damnable outspoken enemy of Constitutional rights, Joe Biden. Enough said.

Ansel Hazen

Another two faced lying libtard. The only option I see left at this point is to take the Founding Fathers at their word. They warned us. We need to step up and do what they told us to do.


it is coming sooner rather than later, and as with the first time there will be a mix of working people fighting for their rights from ruling class

Last edited 8 months ago by swmft
Ansel Hazen

Agreed. These days the bulk of my discretionary income is going to guns and ammo related purchases. Winter has been tough but finally getting some range time again. Zeroed 3 guns yesterday.


She is like the rest of his “picks”, unqualified and unpatriotic — with the added bonus of the race card


Biden knows Jackson is unfit for SCOTUS, and he’ll turn it around as a race issue he can use once she’s rejected. Imagine a Supreme Court based on affirmative action, just look at what it’s done to the Biden administration. What happened to getting people that were actually qualified? Her Uncle : House Democratic Caucus chairman Hakeem Jeffries of New York — has been heavily criticized for his past anti-Semitic remarks, and the 1992 Harvard speaking engagement drew robust campus protests.According to the report, Jeffries also claimed that Jesus, Moses, and Buddha were all Black.   Joe has lost his mind along… Read more »

Wild Bill

Hiring by race … and gender. Isn’t that illegal for the rest of us?


Yes it is


the rules only apply to reasonable people, affirmative action is destroying this country. the most capable person should be the hire


yes and no, you can specify if you are looking for a transgender of color or some other bs , but not if you want a christian or other specific normal thing. miami local news has a female sports reporter that filed a discrimination suit because she was not allowed in men’s locker room for interviews


If a black woman was the goal, I would nominate Antonia Okafor ( an outspoken for gun rights black woman ).

BTW, black women are the demographic if the most new, first time gun owners in recent years.