Saturday, July 7, 2018

For Guns Or Not For Guns

Conservatives are sitting on the edge of their seat awaiting Trumps Supreme Court nomination. It has come to a choice of three according to the Washington Post, federal judges Brett M. Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge and Amy Coney Barrett. Brett Kavanaugh and Raymond Kethledge are the favorites, both of which are allegedly staunch Second Amendment supporters.

According to The Federalist, Kethledge practices law from the strict interpretation of what was intended by our founders, which is what conservatives are hoping for in a Supreme Court pick. Interpretation of the Second Amendment is likely to become a key issue in future Supreme Court cases, so the more justices that view the constitution from an originalist view point, the better. Kavanagh is also said to be an originalist, when it comes to the Second Amendment he wrote a scathing dissent against the District of Columbia appeals court which supported bans on personal firearms in Washington D.C. Kavanagh wrote-

This is all great news however; Kavanaugh is also said to have supported the individual mandate in Obamacare. In fact, many conservatives are pointing out that his opinion helped Chief Justice Roberts in ruling that Obamacare was constitutional as a tax. He argued this position under the 1867 Anti-injunction Act which posited that a tax couldn’t be challenged in court until it has been paid. That is an interesting perspective to add to his consideration for the Supreme Court.

While these two picks appear to be positive as far as gun rights are concerned, Trumps nomination of Mark Jeremy Bennett is a bit more disconcerting. Bennett is a former attorney general from Hawaii who has very limited interpretations of the Second Amendment, and, Democrats are praising his nomination. Why would Trump nominate two pro-Second Amendment judges to the Supreme Court and an anti-gunner to the 9th circuit, which is the most anti-gun appeals court there is? Furthermore, why would Trump want to nominate anyone whom the Democrats would support with the way he is being treated?

While the answers to these questions may be difficult to answer you can bet that there are some hefty Second Amendment battles coming up. There is massive campaign being organized to push for new gun laws before the November election. These laws would include the so called Red-Flag laws being passed in many states. These laws enable law enforcement to seize firearms from people considered to be a “threat to themselves or others.” That is broad terminology unto which firearms can be seized. How long until simply owning a gun makes you a threat to yourself or others? Unfortunately, this is terminology that President Trump and his administration have used after the Parkland Florida shooting.

According to the Washington Post, Trump’s White House also endorsed a bill that would allegedly strengthen and expand the federal background check system currently in place. Universal background checks have long been a goal by the anti-gun left.

Trumps record on Second Amendment support is all over the board. This website shows a broad range of answers given by Trump when being questioned on Second Amendment issues. They range from opposing all restrictions on firearms, to supporting a ban on so called assault weapons and longer wait periods to buy a gun. Trump also stated that large purchases of ammunition and body armor should be considered red flags and that there should be watch lists which enable the government to determine who and who shouldn’t be able to purchase a gun. Ironically, his support for the Second Amendment appears to gain more strength the closer it gets to 2016.

The upcoming months promise to be interesting. What will happen if Trumps pro-gun nominees clash with his alleged support for red-flag gun control laws? Will a Supreme Court Justice Kethledge, for example, stick to his original beliefs concerning the original intent of the founders on the Second Amendment or will he, like Roberts, cave into political activism?  At this point it is anybody’s guess.


  1. If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, "You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy."

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped."

    1. Thanks for the comment. I definitely have not fallen for the lie that the Supreme Court has the final say on our freedom. Good to see that you haven't as well. The problem is, too many of us have.