Posted on 02/01/2017 8:01:16 AM PST by LibWhacker
Donald Trump’s nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is generally regarded as a supporter of the Second Amendment and gun rights.
Vigorously praised by the National Rifle Association, Neil Gorsuch “has endorsed Second Amendment rights,” says FiveThirtyEight. However, there is one ruling that gives some conservatives concern, relating to when police can disarm those carrying firearms.
Although Gorsuch’s positions on some hot button issues – like abortion – are less clear, his stances on the Second Amendment and guns are clearer.
Trump chose Gorsuch, 49 – a Denver appellate judge who is known as an “originalist” – to replace the late conservative justice Antonin Scalia.
Here’s what you need to know:
1. The NRA Applauded Gorsuch’s Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
In a statement, the National Rifle Association made it clear the group is thrilled with Trump’s choice of Gorsuch for the court.
“President Trump has made an outstanding choice in nominating Judge Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an impressive record that demonstrates his support for the Second Amendment,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, NRA-Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement.
“We urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, just as it did in confirming him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a unanimous voice vote.”
2. Gorsuch Wrote That an Individual’s Right to Bear Arms Can Not Be ‘Infringed Lightly’
One reason the NRA likes Gorsuch is because he once wrote in a legal opinion: “The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”
That comment case in United States v. Games-Perez. He also wrote: “There is ‘a long tradition of widespread gun ownership by private individuals in this country.”
The case involved a man who claimed he didn’t know he was a felon in an illegal gun possession case.
3. Gorsuch Has Supported the Second Amendment in Legal Opinions
According to the Charlotte Observer, “Gorsuch has supported the Second Amendment in his case readings,” although some of the cases only “tangentially involve gun rights.”
For example, in the 2012 case, United States v. Games-Perez, Gorsuch also argued that a felon “needed to know not only that he possessed the gun but also that he was a felon for the criminal law to apply,” according to the newspaper.
More critically for those trying to assess where Gorsuch stands on gun rights issues, “his dissent included a defense of the Second Amendment, in which he wrote, “gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right.” But he did question whether a felon could be wrongfully imprisoned for possessing a gun, according to the decision.
4. Some Conservatives Are Concerned About a Gun Case Involving Police Power
The American Thinker noted that Gorsuch had joined in the majority in a case called United States v. Rodriguez. The case in New Mexico involved a police officer disarming a man who was carrying a concealed handgun. The officer disarmed Rodriguez before determining he was a convicted felon who didn’t have a right to carry, wrote the American Thinker.
The magazine expressed concern that the officer’s actions would have been upheld even if Rodriguez had been lawfully carrying. “According to the 10th Circuit’s opinion, the police are justified in forcibly disarming every armed citizen based on nothing more than the presence of a concealed firearm. This allows the police to treat every law-abiding gun owner like a criminal,” the site reported.
5. Gorsuch Is Considered to Be Similar in Philosophy to Scalia, Who Was Extraordinarily Influential on Gun Issues
When describing the type of justice he wanted, Trump had said he wanted someone in Scalia’s mold who “will respect the constitution of the United States. And I think that this is so important–also, the Second Amendment which is totally under siege by people like Hillary Clinton.”
Gorsuch is widely described to be similar to Scalia in intellectualism and philosophy. Scalia was a lynchpin on gun issues. According to Newsweek, in 2008’s Heller 5-4 decision, “Scalia wrote a landmark opinion for the majority of the court that upheld an individual’s right to bear arms. His ruling infuriated liberals and settled the questions, at least for now, about whether the phrase ‘well regulated militia’ in the Second Amendment means people” have an individual right to bear arms. Scalia found that they do.
During his nomination press conference, Gorsuch spoke fondly and emotionally about the late justice, calling him a lion of the law.
Gorsuch is described as both an originalist and textualist. As The Washington Post explains them, “Like Scalia, Gorsuch is a proponent of originalism — meaning that judges should attempt to interpret the words of the Constitution as they were understood at the time they were written — and a textualist who considers only the words of the law being reviewed, not legislators’ intent or the consequences of the decision.”
Is this guy another Roberts?
“President Trump has made an outstanding choice in nominating Judge Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an impressive record that demonstrates his support for the Second Amendment,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, NRA-Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement.
You stuck an unconstitutional word in there, Yer Honor. But I fixed it for you. You're welcome.
Just using the info in this article / piece the landscape is foggy. His opinion before mattered as a circuit judge. “Infringment not taken lightly” is spoken by someone at that level. As a SCOTUS this opinion would need to be re-evaluated because he can now state what “Lightly” and “Infringement” actually mean.
So these opinions could have been stated analytically at the level of law where he practiced. Now that he’s at the top, those levels should affect what he says, does, thinks and bangs the gavel on.
I hope he’s not. I find it odd that a textualist would feel the need to add “lightly.”
Before trying to Bork this man, there is a total rebuttal of this article by the NRA re their support of Neil Gorsuch.
NRA Applauds Neil Gorsuch’s Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court
https://www.nraila.org/articles/20170131/nra-applauds-neil-gorsuchs-nomination-to-the-us-supreme-court ^ | Jan 21, 2016
Posted on 2/1/2017, 7:42:20 AM by KeyLargo
APPEARS IN News
Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Fairfax, Va.— The National Rifle Association (NRA) applauds the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the United States Supreme Court.
“President Trump has made an outstanding choice in nominating Judge Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an impressive record that demonstrates his support for the Second Amendment,” said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director, NRA-ILA. “We urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, just as it did in confirming him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a unanimous voice vote.”
During his tenure on the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch has demonstrated his belief that the Constitution should be applied as the framers intended. To that end, he has supported the individual right to self-defense. Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”
“On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will be activating our members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Gorsuch. He will protect our right to keep and bear arms and is an outstanding choice to fill Justice Scalia’s seat,” concluded Cox.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3520050/posts
Does textualism include contextualism and/or subtextualism? I hope not.
I hope he is better on the Commerce Clause than Scalia was.
I want another Thomas!
That makes some sense to me. So a sort of judiciary boilerplate that is worded to show deferential respect to the higher courts?
Seems a little Merrick Garlandish to me on his stance with police powers.
I don’t particularly like that.
There is no such textual implication as infringe “lightly” and I believe that is the point he was making.
The ‘lightly’ phrasing disturbed me as well.
“sort of judiciary boilerplate that is worded to show deferential respect to the higher courts?”
I hope it is. People across the board are getting stupider and stupider, and judges are no exception. Trump has a good head on his shoulders though, and he knows what working talent looks like and has a solid 40 year history of rejecting idiots.
Trump’s tendencies are not new, they are part of his fabric. We have “watched him grow up” and his business life has been in mainstream spotlights since he was 18. He is behaving exactly the same now as he has since he first came into the spot light. So I’m not worried.
Getting a job for Trump is difficult. He vets you about 100 times more precisely than any government check ever would. That’s why they created the reality show for him - he’s famously hard to work for.
And like I pointed out a year ago, Trump isn’t in this for himself. He’s in this for his kids and grandkids.
Do they really? What makes you say this?
I believe by “lightly” he is referring to CCW permits, city limit exclusions, gun-free zones, etc. To me those are infringments that could be considered light. The right is currently infringed upon on many levels.
“Seems a little Merrick Garlandish to me on his stance with police powers.
I don’t particularly like that.”
Someone said the best way to eliminate a law is to strictly enforce it, or something to that effect.
he was saying that there is no small level of infringement that may be tolerated...
any infringement is too heavy.
no need to fix his quote as it is constitutional... he deserves more of your respect though.
Did a Google search and it more or less supported the claim... So, anyway, I'm remembering Roberts and how he changed his colors overnight. Now with Gorsuch's views on guns, I'm no longer that confident about this nomination. Hope I'm wrong.
I actually took the word “lightly” as a positive thing.
there are “light” infringements on our ownership rights put in place by the feds and the states, so I actually understood that state of his to mean there should be infringement, whatsoever.
I could be wrong though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.