RKBA Ping List
This list is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
Please FReepmail me to be added to or deleted from this ping list.
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.”
In the case cited, which involved the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, Gorsuch concurred in the judgment but wrote a separate opinion. In doing so, he declined to endorse the majority opinion but agreed in the result based on precedent.
Yet there is nothing to object to when the phrase from the majority opinion is placed in context: "there is 'a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country,' and the Supreme Court has held the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly."
Constitutional rights are not of equal weight, and any right is subject to being over-ridden for a variety of reasons. Saying in an opinion that a particular right cannot be dispensed with lightly is just a way of saying that the right must be taken seriously. And in that particular case, it meant that a convicted felon had lost his right to possess a firearm.
Wow ... so simple even a judge can understand it.
The word "lightly" is conspicuous by its absence from the Second Amendment.
Perhaps certain judges should show some respect for their employers (that's We the People, for those of you unclear on the concept); maybe listen to them and learn from them.
If we went back in time and transported the actual 49 year old Justice Scalia to now, and then re-nominated him... there would still be those here who would be making snarky comments. ie... they adore young Ginsburg in Boulder. And if President Trump found a non-senile 49 year old clone of Justice Ginsburg and nominated her... the Democrats would fight the Ginsburg clone tooth and nail.
If Gorsuch is good enough for the NRA and a bunch of right to life groups (do we need to post some quotes); he is good enough for me.
Sorry for the typo... it should have been they adore young Scalia in Boulder.
Or change SHALL to MAY.
That’s like, “I know you can be underwhelmed and overwhelmed. But can you ever just be whelmed?”
Observations like that just leave me gruntled.
Ping
Scalia thought Roe v Wade was bad Law.
The reason being that it is a States Right issue, a Democratic issue, not a Federal Constitutional issue.
His opinion had nothing to do with the Personhood of the Unborn since in his opinion the Constitution says nothing about it.
That opinion could be considered vague, yet most Conservatives looked at Scalia as their kind of Justice. Scalia was famous in his decisions by stating that his personal Opinion meant nothing when it came to his Rulings.
lighten up francis...
he wasn’t quoting the second amendment, but supporting it by saying there is no way to infringe lightly upon it...
the good judge thought reading comprehension skills were better than what is being displayed.
good luck to you.
The second amendment does not address any degree of infringement beyond ZERO.
"...shall not be infringed."
RKBA Ping List
This list is for all things pertaining to the 2nd Amendment.
Please FReepmail me to be added to or deleted from this ping list.
Thanks. Now I know I'm right.
Yes. Good ol’ Honest Abe.
I've been doing some searches and have been unable to actually find that quote as written in context. It could well be that he was thinking in terms of the level of 'scrutiny' it should be reviewed under. "Strict scrutiny" is what those of us who are more literalist in our interpretation of the Constitution. "Intermediate" scrutiny is much more dangerous because it allows for more 'wiggle room' to activist judges.
“The Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”
Many here need to actually relax a bit and READ the quote before pronouncing judgment.
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.