Gun Control Threatens Court Packing Again

By Larry Keane

Why I Am Suing The Governor of Virginia, iStock-1055138108
The unauthorized leak of a draft abortion opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court has Democrats up in arms (again) about packing the U.S. Supreme Court. IMG iStock-1055138108

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- The unauthorized leak of a draft abortion opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court has Democrats up in arms (again) about packing the U.S. Supreme Court. This isn’t a new argument and one gun control advocates publicly pitched before.

Senators are openly calling for court-packing again and that’s before the Supreme Court has rendered a final opinion on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen or finalized the opinion of the leaked abortion draft decision. Even before the nine justices heard arguments on the New York case challenging the state’s arbitrary and restrictive “may issue” concealed carry permit criteria, there were calls for court-packing.

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) filed an amicus brief in NYSRPA v. New York supporting restrictive gun control but took arguments beyond supporting the law with threats to upend the court’s structure. That case was ultimately declared “moot” by the Supreme Court after New York City altered the law to avoid the Court striking down the law.

“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal,” Sen. Whitehouse wrote.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) led a 2019 letter excoriating court-packing threats and urged the justices to render opinions based on Constitutional interpretations, not public opinion polls. The letter was signed by 53 Republican senators.

“It’s one thing for politicians to peddle these ideas in Tweets or on the stump,” Sen. McConnell wrote. “But the Democrats’ amicus brief demonstrates that their court-packing plans are more than mere pandering. They are a direct, immediate threat to the independence of the judiciary and the rights of all Americans.”

It’s a fool’s errand to predict a Supreme Court ruling, but the justices’ questions offered insight that they appeared to be wary of New York’s subjective qualifications to obtain concealed carry permits. The decision will be the most significant on gun rights since the 2010 McDonald decision.

That’s got gun control groups acting like spoiled school children. They’re throwing fits. They too want to change the court’s structure. Several of these groups joined together for a discussion on how to change the rules and rig the system against law-abiding Americans and their God-given right to self-defense.

Hiding the Agenda

Igor Volsky, Executive Director of Guns Down America, Matt Post of March for Our Lives, Demand Justice’s Tamara Brummer, and U.S. Rep. Mondaire Jones (D-N.Y.) joined together for a closed-door discussion about their desire to pack the Supreme Court. They want more gun control-friendly justices that would legislate from the bench to restrict rights. The webinar was closed to the public, forcing any tuning in to register their personal information ahead of time. There is no public video of the discussion anywhere.

Brummer believes the Supreme Court has, “always been a political battleground, and now liberals need to push for more seats that will protect progressive policy advancements,” like restrictive gun control. Matt Post exclaimed from the National Mall, “Their right to own an assault rifle does not outweigh our right to live.” True assault rifles, or automatic weapons used by the military, have been severely restricted for civilian ownership since 1934 and haven’t been commercially made or sold since 1986.

Volsky is an ardent gun control supporter. He’s not only affiliated with Guns Down America but is also vice president of the far-left think tank Center for American Progress. He fired off a Twitter meltdown when U.S. District Court Judge Roger Benitez struck down California’s 30-year-old ban on Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) in his ruling on Miller v. Bonta last year.

Rep. Jones has never met a gun control proposal he didn’t like. He so strongly supports court-packing that he’s introduced legislation, along with fellow gun control Reps. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), and Sen. Edward Markey (D-Mass.), to expand the court in order to pack it.

“To restore power to the people, we must expand the Supreme Court,” Rep. Jones said. He must’ve forgotten the people elected the president who nominated justices on the current court, including the previous two Democratic presidents who filled vacancies. That doesn’t include the Highest Court’s newest justice, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who was recently nominated by President Joe Biden and confirmed by the U.S. Senate and will be seated later this summer once Justice Stephen Breyer formally retires from the bench.

Voting and Buying

These groups and elected officials aren’t just ignoring their oath to defend the Constitution, they’re ignoring their obligation to represent “We the People.” More than 40 million firearms were purchased in 2020 and 2021, including more than 14 million by first-time buyers. The firearm buying boom has meant 33 months straight of 1 million or more guns purchased. This includes historic numbers of minorities and more than 40 percent of first-time gun-buyers were women who feel empowered by taking up their Second Amendment rights.

Poll after poll shows Americans reject restrictions on their right to own a gun, including historic low levels of support for more gun control. It’s why federal legislation, including Rep. Jones’s court-packing gun control bill, has largely stalled and President Joe Biden is drawing the ire of gun control groups disappointed with his failure to accomplish more. It’s why his first nominee for Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), David Chipman, failed to earn even the support of Democrats in the U.S. Senate and had his nomination withdrawn. 

Volsky’s gun control court-packing expansion discussion demonstrated why their effort is a failing one. Preaching to the gun control choir won’t do anything to make neighborhoods safer or stop criminals from committing their crimes.

Democratic President Barack Obama famously stated, “Elections have consequences.” The rules are the same for everyone and presidents get to nominate justices to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court when they arise. Americans are embracing their Second Amendment rights by the millions and gun control groups are losing their argument. Because of that, they’re now clamoring to change the rules.NSSF


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 nssf.org

National Shooting Sports Foundation

3.3 4 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
26 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
KK

NY passed a law mandating the “registration” of AR type rifles.
NY gun owners responded with a 4% compliance rate.
If the SUPREMES were to uphold the unconstitutional law, do you think all AR owners would run out and register their AR15’s???
Hmmmmm . . . I wonder.

john

The justice system is under construction in our country. It only works if you are a criminal and voted democrat.

If you are victim you will be labeled by Merrick Garland a terrorist and one or all of the government alphabet agencies will be sent to your home.

“The Biden administration guilty of Treason”

gregs

“Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal,” Sen. Whitehouse wrote. perhaps whitehouse should learn about each branch of government and its purpose. you mean this hank johnson when talking about Guam, “My fear is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize,” Johnson said, straight-faced and seemingly serious. Matt Post exclaimed from the National Mall, “Their right to own an assault rifle does not outweigh our right… Read more »

Pa John

Here is a DuckDuckGo search for “venezuela court packing”: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=venezuela+court+packing&atb=v314-1&ia=web And here is just one of the many headlines that search returns: Chavez Rigging Venezuela’s Supreme Court Was the First Step in Destroying Democracy and Freedom I feel it is important that more people understand a simple truth here: A Supreme Court that actually rules on all cases according to what the U.S. Constitution does or does not say, just as they are supposed to, would destroy the left. It is a barrier to everything they seek to do. For the anti-American / cultural Marxists to succeed, they MUST neutralize… Read more »

swmft

every thing they have proposed would bring about violent repercussions, and a good chance of their own untimely demise., there are limits to what people will put up with. the small percentage of people who fought the revolutionary war today would be millions ,
there are people who do what they are told on the left,but these are the same people who will not fight

Last edited 4 days ago by swmft
nrringlee

Obama was famous for saying elections have consequences but his intent in that statement is not what you may think. On the surface most interpret that statement to mean that the people voice their will so the elected must enact that will. But no, Obama, the Rosemary’s Baby of the Progressive New Left means something entirely different as does the rest of the Progressive New Left and their globalist enablers. Election losses simply mean a shift in tactics. The Progressive New Left learned some valuable lessons from their Progressive (Wilsonian) grandparents. When you lost in the polling place you simply… Read more »

Montana454Casull

First of all most Americans own modern sporting rifles . Very few own assualt rifles that require you to do a background check and register with the FBI and ATF and purchase a $200 stamp annually . Now to adtrssthe court packing . Democrats want to pack the court to get thier way on Roe v Wade and gun control but this is not a legitimate way to decide these issues . What it is is if we can’t have our way we will cheat and change the rules . This is the Democrat way !

nrringlee

Funny, in the three decades I carried SERVICE RIFLES in the Marine Corps I never heard the term ‘assault rifle’ once used by us professionals. The first time I heard that word was in a NYT op/ed by a statistician from the Center for Disease Control. That was about 1994 if memory serve. “Assault weapons’ were to be found in the assault sections of each weapons platoon: LAAW, SMAW, and other bunker and armor busting weapons. Not rifles. So the point is this: get back to and hold to strict definitions. We are currently in a war of ideas fueled… Read more »

swmft

we dont use trench storming guns any more, that is why you never heard the term, and the term was storming guns not assault Sturmgewehr trench storming you are either issued a squad automatic weapon (saw) or a light infantry rifle m16 or one of its variants , the idiots got hold of the abbreviation for armalite and ran like the rabid dogs they are

USMC0351Grunt

You are 110% correct Marine! As an 0351 I carried an assault weapon, that being the M72 LAAWS Rockets in the Anti-Tank Assault Squad of Bravo Company, 1st battalion 7th Marines, Weapons Platoon. My job was to kill people and blow shit up. My service weapon was a 45 caliber sidearm and those piece of shit incendiary multi-shot flame weapons. As a matter of fact if you look through Marine Corps history there has never been an assault rifle in the United States Marine Corps since November 10th of 1775 on forward.

TexDad

Gun control: “Let’s rig the game so we can’t lose.”

That’s power to the people?

That’s oppressive of the people.

musicman44mag

Roe vs Wade, same game, different cause but both are wanting the same outcome.

TexDad

Yep. Upholding RvW is an exercise in intellectual dishonesty. Even pro-choice advocates have strongly criticized RvW’s reasoning, proposing that it should have derived from other parts of the Constitution. The core reasoning is that the right to privacy is derived from the due process clause, and a woman’s right to abortion is derived from her right to privacy. Yeah, some leaps. SC even mentions that while an outright ban on abortion cannot stand, balancing this right with the unborn child’s right to life can be permitted. Think about that for a second, there apparently is a satisfactory balance that can… Read more »

Russn8r

If the SupCt cared about privacy or “my body my choice” they wouldn’t have affirmed gvt’s right to forcibly inject people.

Bork was full of it. There should be a Right to Privacy derived from 4A, 5A, 9A, 10A, 14A, The Declaration of Independence, framer quotes, etc.

Privacy does not imply a right to kill unborn babies. “My body my choice” should apply to an unborn baby’s body, and it should be presumed it doesn’t want to be killed.

TexDad

Agreed as to protecting a human who doesn’t yet have the capacity to advocate for his or her own life.

But even if I didn’t agree, I would still be honest enough to admit that RvW’s reasoning is absurd.

Russn8r

I thought that was implied. RvW’s reasoning is absurd.

TexDad

Just highlighting that my argument is not against abortion, it’s for judges to do their job.

Russn8r

Rog.

musicman44mag

Good answer. IMO the problem is that there is a Christian point of view and an atheist point of view. Since I claim to be a Christian, though I am sure I am a poor example, I believe it says in the bible, thou shalt not murder. Murder is killing with intent; it was planned out just like an abortion. To the atheist it makes no difference because they don’t have any higher power to believe in other than themselves or the collective whichever they prefer. Since our constitution and country was founded under Christian principle, I believe that abortion… Read more »

DDS

Want your head to hurt?

Get an atheist to try and explain, WITHOUT mentioning a deity, why it is perfectly fine to gas 6 million termites but not so fine to gas 6 million Jews .

swmft

think about applications of federal gun control laws on abortion ,crossed state line to kill baby first degree murder charge when they return home

Wild Bill

No, the full faith and credit clause.

swmft

return to states rights, and individual rights commies will hate that

swmft

hoping scotus changes their ruling to read a right is a right unless you have lost your rights through a legal court actions all weapons are protected sink ever infringement in one wack

Russn8r

Constitutionally legal court action to remove rights = Fair speedy trial by fully informed jury of peers. It does NOT = “adjudication”.

Trial by Jury Alexander Hamilton.png
Wild Bill

Brother, I just don’t like that lost their Rights life sentence. It is a “made up in 1934” notion.