NRA Endorses Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court. The GOA? Not So Much . . .

“The National Rifle Association applauds the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the United States Supreme Court,” the NRA’s presser proclaims [via ammoland.com] According to NRA-ILA’s executive director Chris Cox, “He has an impressive record that demonstrates his support for the Second Amendment.” Specifically . . .

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.

Our man Johannes offers a closer look at Judge Gorsuch’s firearms friendliness in the next post.

Meanwhile, the Gun Owners of America were at least initially hesitant to endorse Judge Gorsuch for the Supreme Court, as revealed by a pre-nomination editorial in American Thinker.

Larry Pratt focused his concerns on the Judge’s ruling in United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481 (11th Cir. 2013)

The precedent from the Rodriguez opinion will affect police-citizen relations in New Mexico, and possibly elsewhere in the Tenth Circuit, for many years to come.  Not bothering to figure out the legality of Rodriguez’s firearm before detaining and disarming him, the officer’s initial actions would have been the same even if Mr. Rodriguez had been a lawful gun owner.

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 – which, in many cases we have seen, includes rough treatment such as grabbing him, twisting his arm behind his back, slamming him down on the ground, and handcuffing him.

Far too many police officers do not like anyone to be armed other than themselves and have taken it upon themselves to intimidate those who dare to exercise Second Amendment rights.  Under the Rodriguez decision, only after being forcibly disarmed and detained would a citizen be entitled to demonstrate that he was lawfully exercising his Second Amendment rights.

In closing, Mr. Pratt admits that “a single opinion such as this is not be enough to derail a Supreme Court nomination, especially since Judge Gorsuch did not even write the opinion.”

But “a pro-gun United States senator or two should most certainly inquire as to this decision and ask Judge Gorsuch to explain whether he really believes that the police should be free to treat all armed citizens as though they were dangerous criminals.” Here’s hoping.

comments

  1. avatar former water walker says:

    They disarmed a criminal carrying a gun from what I can glean from the case. I too want clarification. BUT I am overjoyed at Gorsuch being pro-baby human…and that’s a whole lot better than the old shriveled up hag on the bench.

    1. avatar Ed says:

      What the ruling was is that the police can violate anyones rights and assume that anyone they see carrying is a criminal and that they can treat the person as a criminal until the person proves otherwise. Nice huh?
      So because you chose to exercise your second amendment right today…expect to be accosted, handcuffed (probably on the ground at gunpoint ) and have a burden of proof laid on you at the behest of the first nervous, bored or overzealous cop that sees you. Oh what, it happened more than once in the same day? Too bad! That is now the cops right to stop you anytime they see you armed and again treat you like a criminal. Doesn’t sound like a nice way to live.

      1. avatar Demo Man says:

        Ed- that’s what Duty to Inform is all about. It means that any cop, out of uniform, off-duty, or out of his proper jurisdiction, can stop, search, and disarm any licensed armed citizen at any time, but with legal cover.

        Here’s the Duty to Inform that NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde placed in Illinois state Rep. Brandon Phelps concealed carry bill in 2013. As the FIFTIETH state to adopt carry, it’s the best they could do (for the police unions.)
        I am not making this up:

        “If an officer of a law enforcement agency (who’s a cop? John Gacy had Sheriff’s badge) initiates an investigative stop, (feels like harassing you) including but not limited to a traffic stop, (anywhere outside your front door) of a licensee or a non-resident carrying a concealed firearm (DTI applies to non-residents traveling through Illinois, except cops and retired cops) under subsection (e) of Section 40 of this Act, upon the request of the officer (just because he feels like it) the licensee or non-resident shall disclose to the officer (criminal penalties if you don’t, his word against yours) that he or she is in possession of a concealed firearm under this Act, or present the license upon the request of the officer…” (show me your papers)

        “Upon the request of the officer, (or serial killer John Gacy) the licensee or
        non-resident shall also identify the location of the concealed firearm and permit the officer to safely secure the firearm (or shoot you accidentally) for the duration of the investigative stop. (You’re not from around here, are you boy?)

        The Duty to Inform language continues on and gets worse if that’s even humanly possible, but I don’t want you to barf. This is what happens when Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham fail to perform a criminal background check on sick users like Todd Vandermyde and let them run loose in Springfield. Thanks Todd!

        “…the police can violate anyones rights and assume that anyone they see carrying is a criminal and that they can treat the person as a criminal until the person proves otherwise.”

        You got it, Duty to Inform is legalized execution, promoted by NRA with the police unions. NRA and the cops are in bed together to get you killed.

        “…because you chose to exercise your second amendment right today…expect to be accosted, handcuffed (probably on the ground at gunpoint ) and have a burden of proof laid on you at the behest of the first nervous, bored or overzealous cop that sees you. Oh what, it happened more than once in the same day? Too bad! That is now the cops right to stop you anytime they see you armed and again treat you like a criminal.”

        You got it, if you have a local cop that doesn’t like you, he can stop you every time you leave your house. Great work! Where do I sign up for NRA life membership?

        1. avatar Jack Gordon says:

          The usual harum-scarum stuff that gives gun owners & CC aficionados a bad name. The “philosophy” behind this? “Let’s see if I can come up with a situation, regardless of how tortuous or convoluted my reasoning, that will invalidate a reasonable law in every reader’s mind. Now, what can I write? I’ve got it! I’ll remind them that a perfect monster once carried a sheriff’s badge!” In my state, we have no duty to inform a police officer we are carrying a firearm. Just across the border in a neighboring state, my state’s CC permit is valid but, if stopped, I must inform an officer I’m armed. Either situation is fine with me since I don’t travel around burdened with an extravagant and morbid fear that every cop I encounter is another John Gacey. There are a few bad cops, but the vast majority are reasonable fellows (or gals) doing a dangerous and difficult job. Cut the profession some slack, please!

      2. avatar Demo Man says:

        Jack- If Duty to Inform was a “reasonable law” that promoted “officer safety” it would be required for off-duty and retired officers carrying across state lines under LEOSA. It’s not, but you’re a good slave making excuses for your masters. They say the perfect slave thinks he’s free. Do you have enough self awareness to understand that you will never be more than what you are?

        I get how Klan law works where you live, though. You’re “one of the good guys” and you are “on the same side” as the police, who have a really tough job, so you are just doing your part to “make their job easier” because you’re a good old boy. Besides, nothing bad will ever happen to you if you just don’t dwell on it too much, and anyway, “everyone knows me around here.”

        Tell me what nursing home you are writing from and you are now eligible for a free subscription to “Reminisce” magazine! Remember the good old days when the state policeman bought the kid an ice cream like in that Norman Rockwell painting?

    2. avatar glenux says:

      Former Walter,you said,
      “They disarmed a criminal carrying a gun”.

      Not exactly true.

      From the initial encounter, the officer did NOT know Rodriquez was a criminal.

      We abide by the principals of Due Process, Innocent Until Proven Guilty,
      Reasonable Suspicion and Probable Cause.

      The officer had no reasonable suspicion or probable cause that Mr. Rodriquez had violated any laws, and therefore, violated his right to Due Process.

      If the officer could do it to him, he could do it to you or me.

      Another example of Due Process also means that a court can not find you guilty, then hold the trial.

      And that, in a nutshell, is an example of happened.
      The laws of this land the courts of those laws has basically held that
      merely wearing a gun does not give the officer a probable cause to detain you, disarm you, nor arrest you.
      Officers have no special gift of pre-cognition to know you are a criminal.

      Don’t treat me like a criminal just because I wearing a gun.
      BTW, It’s not my job to sacrifice my rights for their safety.

  2. avatar Alex Waits says:

    Judicial supremacy is wrecking this country.

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      Limit (dilute) their power. Add at least 10 judges to the supreme court. Congress can pass an act to allow it.

      1. avatar Warren says:

        FDR proposed the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 and attempted to do just that. It went over like a lead balloon.

        1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

          So people in power don’t want to limit their power? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!

        2. avatar Nanashi says:

          He didn’t wind up needing it. The Supreme “Court” of his presidency was an utter fraud and marched in goosestep for every horrible thing he did, burning food during the depression, civilian disarmament, slavery.

        3. avatar Ad Astra says:

          @ Mr Pierogie

          “So people in power don’t want to limit their power? I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!”

          You are aware that FDR’s plan to add more justices was an attempt to pack the court with his yes men, and upset the Constitution’s balance of power between the 3 branches? You think FDR was going to nominate people he thought might not rubber stamp his agenda? The rejection of the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937 was one of the few times Congress stood up to that miserable patrician oligarch.

        4. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          @Ad Astra
          I don’t disagree. I guess there’s a difference between packing the court with your own lackeys to push quasi legal legislation, versus appointing people who do nothing more than interpret the constitutionality of laws presented before them.

          Perhaps one way to both reduce the power of the SCOTUS and to avoid partisan politics would be to get rid of lifetime appointments. What if each justice could only serve a single term of 5 or 7 years, for example? Wouldn’t that be better?

      2. avatar HP says:

        Careful what you wish for. Eventually the Democrats will hold power again, and the only thing worse than a liberal majority on the court would be an even bigger liberal majority.

        1. avatar kenneth says:

          Don’t be so sure of that. Political parties come and go. Ever heard of the Whigs? Where are they now?

      3. avatar Roymond says:

        Congress doesn’t have to pass anything; Trump could nominate another justice the moment Gorsuch is confirmed.

        Personally I wish he’d find and nominate a gun-totin’, gay, freedom-loving Iranian married to an ex-gang Mexican who hates the cartels, one who realizes that “shall not be infringed” is equivalent to “shall not have other gods”, just to mess with progressives’ minds — how could they oppose him?

      4. avatar Stuki Moi says:

        Simplest way to prevent legislation from the bench, is to cap The Law at what Moses was told it was supposed to be. Not a mention of guns at all, and simple, straight forward and universal enough so that each one of those in supposed charge, the people, can very quickly and easily determine whether their servants are in fact serving them, rather than themselves.

  3. avatar jwtaylor says:

    Seems like the GOA is taking the prudent approach of “yes, good, even good enough, and we’d like to know more”. The NRA’s release sounds more like “ERMUGERD!”

    1. avatar Warren says:

      Everything the NRA says sounds like ERMAGERD!! It’s fucking exhausting.

      1. avatar TyrannyOfEvilMen says:

        LOL. So true. I am a Benefactor Member and support the Golden Eagles program annually, but even so, the NRA could occasionally turn down the volume on some things.

        If nothing else, this would help their supporters discern a grumble from a clarion call. Maybe a couple of new solid pro-Constitution justices on the Supreme Court will help.

        1. avatar Roymond says:

          The only thing that will help the NRA is to kick that PR firm out of the offices and find a replacement for LaPierre and his love for money.

    2. avatar Demo Man says:

      Roymond- very interesting that you are aware of the existence of Ackerman McQueen ad agency. Some men say that they now effectively run NRA, Inc., and some men say that they were behind sabotaging Neal Knox for Charlton Heston.

      Some men say that Shannon Alford in Illinois is an Ackerman McQueen employee, not an NRA employee. Illinois state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde claims that Alford is his “boss” but I can find no evidence that Chris Cox & Chuck Cunningham at NRA/ILA have ever set foot in Illinois, much less have the faintest control over Vandermyde as he runs around loose like Col. Kurtz.

  4. avatar Stinkeye says:

    “… and may not be infringed lightly.”

    I must have an older copy of the US Constitution. In my edition, the word “lightly” doesn’t appear at the end of the 2nd amendment. Where can I get a copy of the updated version?

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      In the version I have, the “may not” reads “shall not”.

      Is mine another defective copy?

    2. avatar jwtaylor says:

      Judge Gorsuch’s words are absolutely in line with the Constitution. The Constitution makes it clear that with due process any right may be infringed upon. Hence, “not lightly”. To read the 2nd Amendment without regards to due process would mean that if we did imprison someone for a crime they would have the right to keep and bear arms.

      1. avatar Simon says:

        ^This^

      2. avatar Stinkeye says:

        That’s the “benefit of doubt” reading of his words. I hope you’re right. The less-charitable way to take that statement is that he’s saying he’s cool with “reasonable” restrictions on the RKBA, such as the NFA, GCA, FOPA, etc… After all, those infringements weren’t taken on “lightly”, right? They got debated in Congress, and have been upheld by the courts, so they must be reasonable.

        Sadly, nobody will ask him to clarify that in his confirmation hearings, because 90% of the hearings will be one schmuck after another asking the same fucking Roe v. Wade question over and over again.

        1. avatar kenneth says:

          That hits the nail dead on the head. IF he really meant that in the proper way, why wouldn’t he have said “without due process” instead of “lightly”? What, a career judge doesn’t remember the words “due process”? That ought to disqualify him as even a Judge right there, let alone as a Justice.

      3. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Whenever I make that same, fairly obvious point, the 2A absolutists in here start howling at the moon and accuse me of treason.

        Meh. I think Sophacles said it best: Screw ’em.

    3. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      I read it as him being OK with such nonsense as ‘justifiable need’ or anything else that the states come up with, short of an outright ban. I think he is going to be OK with ‘some’ restrictions on the 2A, which the states will no doubt abuse as some do now. I hope I’m wrong, but I don’t see things changing much in places like NJ or NYC.

      1. avatar JasonM says:

        Sounds like another good question for the confirmation hearing.

        1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

          I don’t expect anyone to ask it. I’m guessing he will be fine with ‘reasonable’ restrictions on guns. Of course reasonable always turns into abusive, but nobody will admit it. If he does say that reasonable restrictions are OK, I’m guessing everyone at the confirmation hearing will be happy with that answer. If anything, they’ll lob him a softball follow up question and that’s it.

      2. avatar Demo Man says:

        Pierogie Man- “I read it as him being OK with such nonsense as ‘justifiable need’ or anything else that the states come up with, short of an outright ban.”

        I’m afraid you are right. Maybe that’s why NRA, Inc. is backing him, judging by what NRA did in Illinois after the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Chicago TOTALLY OVERTURNED Illinois UUW weapons law in a surprise decision in Dec. 2012, based on the McDonald v. Chicago case.

        I watched NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde, Richard Pearson from ISRA (IL state rifle association, the NRA state tumor in Illinois) and the same tired, old, cast of losers and clowns sell out Otis and give away every right they possibly could to the anti-gun police unions in our carry bill.

        It seems that NRA, Inc. benefits from passing the worst bills possible that get their own members killed by police criminals. This provides job security for their lobbyists to “fix” the shit bills they put up, plus bill out hours for NRA lawyers later.

        May I say that you are a very practical and clear thinking Polish man, if in fact you are Polish. Props.

        1. avatar Mr. Pierogie says:

          Haha, thanks. I guess there’s not enough track record to know exactly how Gorsuch will rule on 2A cases, and maybe I’m being too cynical, but seems to me that, based on what little we know, that he would be OK with ‘reasonable’ restrictions on guns. Another thing that worries me is that he was unanimously confirmed by the Senate when he was appointed to the court of appeals (even Weeping Chuck voted for him). Any opposition by the Dems now will be nothing more than hollow virtue signalling. The fact that none of them opposed his previous nomination makes me think he’s probably willing to compromise on issues, which certainly isn’t good for 2A supporters. And the overwhelming NRA support doesn’t impress me either (and I just renewed my membership). For example, NRA has pretty much abandoned NJ gun owners. So it wouldn’t surprise me if the guy they are backing now will be OK with the status quo in the remaining restrictive states. Again, I hope I’m wrong and I will be the first one to praise Gorsuch if he proves me wrong. But will he?

        2. avatar CueBaller says:

          It’s cute that you think that the NRA or the ISRA had any actual control over a law passed by a Democratic majority House AND Senate.

          Madigan and Cullerton are the reasons we have duty to inform, a CCL review board to handle LEO objections, outrageous cost and training requirements, and the 23 categories of prohibited zones.

          The NRA and ISRA are responsible for the good parts of the bill; statewide handgun preemption, no more AWBs that weren’t already in existence (or enacted during the 10 day window), the “mostly” concealed language which prevents being in legal hot water for printing or momentary visibility of your gun, churches NOT being one of the prohibited locations, mandatory signs for all GFZs (the opposition wanted no signs… the presumption of prohibition unless a sign was posted stating carry was allowed), etc. etc. etc.

          I’d also note that during the late states of the FCCA’s construction, the NRA and ISRA were no longer allowed into the negotiations… the rest was left to the few pro-gun legislators we have to try and come out with a workable bill.

          But you’d know all this if you bothered to pay attention, rather than taking every possible opportunity to piss all over Todd and Brandon because you didn’t get everything you wanted in a carry law that only came into existence because the Democratic overlords were told by a Federal court that they couldn’t outright ban carry anymore.

      3. avatar Demo Man says:

        Pierogie- I like the way you use your guts and Spidey sense to tell your conscious mind that something is wrong with this picture. I’ve watched what NRA did in Illinois to Otis McDonald, so now you have me wondering if I should “smell a rat” (as they say in the Chicago Outfit) in this deal. If NRA approves Gorsuch, something may be seriously wrong with him, because NRA does not ever want to win.

        So here’s my half-assed prediction: if not one Senator questions Gorsuch about any 2nd Amendment cases, then I say that the fix is in and NRA has sold us out. Gorsuch was a shill in the carny game from day one if nobody grills him. Let’s see what happens.

        As you see here with cueballer, Illinois’ “gun rights” movement is infested with clowntards that are too stupid to figure out that they got stabbed in the back by NRA, even after you specify the location of the knife. These guys are embarrassing. Good old boys who have never really done anything with their life like to feel as if they are part of a group, even if it’s composed of losers and suckers.

        As someone whose ancestors have been in the once-great state of Illinois for over one hundred years, I apologize to you and all the practically minded Polish folks like yourself in New Jersey for our hicks.

        Once you get south of Joliet, you might as well be in Tennessee, it’s all tattoos, trucker caps, monster trucks, and Larry the Cable Guy shirts with the sleeves cut off. This is the Todd Vandermyde fan club. You’d have to be swilling septic drainage in a sewer to be look up to Vandermyde, because he is a low class slob that lives in a gutter.

        Your hearty diet of pickled meat and carbs has made your mind strong and clear. I may have to look into this. Luckily there are many Polish restaurants in Chicago.

    4. avatar Roymond says:

      I have a legal-beagle friend who read that, and he said he thinks adding the word “lightly” indicates that Gorsuch thinks that strict scrutiny should apply to all Second-Amendment issues. (He says if that’s the case, he opposes Gorsuch; he’s for intermediate scrutiny, the silly Fudd.)

  5. avatar dollup15 says:

    The case at issue is as follows: Under New Mexico law, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, unless you have a permit. The police officer saw a man carrying a concealed weapon, a generally illegal act, so, he was stopped and frisked, and placed under arrest when it was determined he didn’t have a permit. The court held that because the police stopped a man to investigate what the police officer observed to be generally illegal act, it was constitutional.

    If this had happened in another state, where concealed carry isn’t illegal at all (constitutional carry states), then the result would likely have been different, because the police wouldn’t have had a valid reason to believe a crime was being committed merely by observing someone carrying a concealed weapon.

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      “Under New Mexico law, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon, unless you have a permit.” This is true of all non-Constitutional Carry states that issue carry permits, as far as I can tell.

      Constitutional Carry states are still tiny minority when compared to states that only allow carry with an approved permit. Unless the 10th circuit primarily consists of Constitutional Carry states, it will have a negative effect on many people.

    2. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Sorry, that “generally illegal” argument doesn’t work.

      Driving without a driver’s license is also illegal. However, just seeing someone driving isn’t justification for demanding to see his or her drivers license. There has to be a reason to believe the person is driving without a license.

      We could also go into the whole “concealed means concealed” thing, but let’s not.

      I will note, however, that open carry in New Mexico is generally legal, so if the gun was obvious, that’s also not a reason in and of itself to detain.

      1. avatar dollup15 says:

        “Driving without a driver’s license is also illegal. However, just seeing someone driving isn’t justification for demanding to see his or her drivers license. There has to be a reason to believe the person is driving without a license.”

        That analogy doesn’t work. Under New Mexico law, carrying a concealed weapon is generally illegal. It is not generally illegal simply to drive a car. That’s an important distinction.

        A better analogy would be that if you are in a state where it is generally illegal to drive a car while talking on your cell phone. If a cop sees you driving while speaking on your cell phone, he is actually witnessing you committing a generally illegal act, and then can stop an demand your license.

        “I will note, however, that open carry in New Mexico is generally legal, so if the gun was obvious, that’s also not a reason in and of itself to detain.”

        If you read the case, the guy had the gun tucked in his waistband under his shirt. I believe he bent over or something like that so that the cop could see it momentarily. The fact that he was carrying concealed was apparently not an issue in the case.

        1. avatar million says:

          “Under New Mexico law, carrying a concealed weapon is generally illegal.”

          the Vagueness Doctrine called, it wants your argument back.

          also, NM is Shall Issue.

        2. avatar Justin says:

          I have to respectfully disagree with your example, If it is illegal to drive and talk on a cell phone then a police office seeing some one doing just that is not viewing an alleged violation but an actual violation in progress.

          it would be more like a cop sees someone driving and their mouth moving like they are talking and pulling them over to make sure they are not just singing along with the radio or something like that.

          Granted the reasonable suspicion barrier is basically whatever they can get a jury to believe.

        3. avatar TFred says:

          “That analogy doesn’t work. Under New Mexico law, carrying a concealed weapon is generally illegal. It is not generally illegal simply to drive a car. That’s an important distinction.”

          I disagree. It is “just as illegal” to drive a car on a public roadway without a license as it is to carry a concealed handgun without a license. “Generally” only comes in to play because you presume a driver is licensed, while you seem to support the idea that it is OK to presume a concealed handgun carrier is not. Absent articulable facts, what authority does a police officer have to presume you are doing either activity without the proper license, and why would one be different from the other?

        4. avatar Hannibal says:

          Heh? It’s a perfectly cromulant analogy. You can be arrested for driving without a license. It is illegal.

        5. avatar TFred says:

          You can be arrested for driving without a license, but you CANNOT be the subject of a traffic stop solely for the purpose of checking to see if you have a license to drive. THAT is the point here.

      2. avatar NWBR says:

        The Rodriguez court made this statement with regard to the driving license argument:

        “Randomly stopping a vehicle to check the driver’s license and registration is more comparable to randomly stopping an individual openly carrying a handgun (which incidentally is lawful in New Mexico).”

        1. avatar TFred says:

          And this is one of the reasons why Rodriguez is a faulty opinion.

          Driving a car does require a license, and despite that, SCOTUS has ruled that you cannot randomly stop drivers “just to see” if they have the required license. Open carry is legal WITHOUT a license, so there is NOT a valid comparison to be made.

          This is simple factual incorrectness in their reasoning, and one of the reasons why it should be overturned.

    3. avatar million says:

      Sorry, no. Because:

      1. Northrup v. City of Toledo Police Dep’t (6th Cir. 2015)

      The Sixth Circuit held that where state law permits the open carry of firearms, the police are not authorized by Terry to conduct a stop – or an attendant frisk – of a person brandishing a gun in public. Where the state legislature “has decided its citizens may be entrusted with firearms on public streets,” the court reasoned, the police have “no authority to disregard this decision” by subjecting law-abiding citizens to Terry stops and frisks.

      2. United States v. Leo (7th Cir. 2015)

      Rejected “frisk” and search of backpack on suspicion that it contains gun in light of “important developments in Second Amendment law together with Wisconsin’s [concealed-carry] gun laws”).

      3. United States v. Ubiles (3d Cir. 2000)

      Invalidated Terry stop based on suspicion of gun possession in open-carry jurisdiction.

      Gorsuch concurred and now we have a circuit split. This matter could go to the Supreme Court where he will soon sit. And he’ll find that possessing a gun strips you of 4A rights.

      1. avatar million says:

        ^all citations lifted from the dissent in US v. Robinson which is a must read.

        http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902A.P.pdf

        1. avatar million says:

          that majority opinion should be a litmus test for something… sanity, perhaps.

      2. avatar dollup15 says:

        No, he probably won’t. He may find, however, that if state law generally prohibits carrying concealed, then a cop can search you if they see a concealed weapon.

        The easiest solution is constitutional carry, which would overturn such a decision.

        1. avatar million says:

          “if state law generally prohibits carrying concealed”

          New Mexico is open carry and a “Shall Issue” concealed carry state. there is nothing generally prohibitive about any of that.

        2. avatar Mark N. says:

          IN response to million, the fact that a permit is required to conceal carry begs the question. The mere fact that someone is carrying a concealed firearm does not lead to the natural inference that that person is doing so illegally. Further, the test under Terry is “armed AND dangerous”; these elements should be treated separately, and the mere fact that someone is armed does not naturally lead to a reasonable suspicion, absent other factors, that that person is “dangerous. The Fourth Circuit recently held that being armed means you are presumed to be dangerous, and that is a very dangerous precedent. I am sure that the court was thinking that it is reasonable to allow an officer to disarm a person who is suspected of being armed while the legality of that carriage is determined, but then it subjects all citizens to warrantless searches without indication of “dangerousness.”

      3. avatar Roymond says:

        If you look at the way Gorsuch has reasoned, it is fairly certain that had Northrup and Leo come before the Rodriguez case, he would have ruled differently, as he gives great weight to SCOTUS decisions.

        Let’s hope so now that his will be making SCOTUS decisions.

      4. avatar Demo Man says:

        million- “Gorsuch concurred and now we have a circuit split. This matter could go to the Supreme Court where he will soon sit. And he’ll find that possessing a gun strips you of 4A rights.”

        I think you are probably right. This may be why NRA, Inc. is supporting Gorsuch. Passing the worst possible concealed carry bills that are written in collusion with police unions and promote legalized execution of armed citizens “benefits” job security for NRA lobbyists like Todd Vandermyde, and creates profits for NRA’s legal department, based on what I have seen in Illinois since 2011.

  6. avatar CalGunsMD says:

    “may not be infringed *lightly*”

  7. avatar TFred says:

    At least two problems with your justification:

    1. How did he “see” a man carrying a concealed weapon? If he “saw” it, then by definition, it was NOT concealed.

    2. It is also illegal to drive a car without a license. That does not give a police officer probable cause to stop and detain every person they see driving a car until they can prove they have a driver’s license.

    By the way, does anyone have a link to the text of the opinion we are talking about here?

    1. avatar NineShooter says:

      A search for “United States v. Rodriguez, 739 F.3d 481” will bring it up.

      I’d post a link, but putting a link in your response here generally sends your post into wait-until-we-can-check-it-for-bad-stuff holding area, never to be seen again.

    2. avatar million says:

      1. Rodriguez was at work stocking shelves at a convenience store and his shirt lifted up (or something) when he was bending over. The LEO asked him to step outside. When Rodriguez opened the door to go outside his shirt came up again and the LEO saw and grabbed the firearm.

      2. The driving analogy is a little trickier because you have no Constitutional right to driving like 2A which some courts have recently regarded with strict scrutiny.

      1. avatar Hannibal says:

        Yes but this wasn’t a case predicated on the 2nd Amendment, it was a Terry v. Ohio case.

        1. avatar Jared Hamon says:

          In reviewing the case the individual WAS NOT USING A HOLSTER. In reveiwing facts as is noted in the followinghttp://www.ammoland.com/2016/05/violent-criminals-holsters-seldom-found-together/#axzz4XUO6UigV, criminal do not use holsters. Or to put it this there are 2 ways this can be justified.

          1. Criminality: Since criminals do not use holsters with handguns anyone not using a holster should treated with caution and further investigation is warranted. Using the car analogy seeing someone drive a vehicle with a busted in driver-side glass could be pulled over on suspicion the car was stolen, there maybe a good reason the car has busted in glass, but its presence garners attention. So too does an un-holstered firearm.

          2. Endangerment: Any individual would want to secure an un-holstered firearm for safety reasons. Unsecured firearms are FAR more dangerous both to the user and to everyone around and the person could stopped for Public Endangerment.

  8. avatar Swilson says:

    Hey, he’s better than what could’ve been under a Hillary regime.

  9. avatar Aaron M. Walker says:

    It’s all a bunch of Bull$#!t ! The words are plain people…”SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!”
    Not even lightly, by police, or Imperial stormtroopers!

    1. avatar Ed says:

      ^^^^THIS^^^^

  10. avatar Danny C-W says:

    Pratt posting fake news. His article about Gorsuch is BS for clicks.

    See this post from National Review
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir

    “A low-profile 2012 case, U.S. v. Games-Perez, illustrates how Gorsuch has applied these views. At issue was a federal law that authorizes prison terms for anyone who “knowingly violates” a ban on the possession of firearms by a convicted felon. A precedent in the Tenth Circuit held that a defendant who knew that he had a firearm could be sentenced under that provision even if he did not know that he was a convicted felon. (In the case Gorsuch was deciding, Miguel Games-Perez had previously taken a plea deal that the presiding judge had misdescribed as an alternative to being “convicted of a felony.”) Gorsuch participated in a panel of three of the circuit’s judges that affirmed the prison sentence. Gorsuch concurred in the result because he felt bound by precedent. At the same time, he made a powerful argument that the circuit’s precedent could not square with the text of the law. And when the case later came before the circuit, he urged it to reconsider that precedent.

    The case brought together several strands of Gorsuch’s thinking. It demonstrated his willingness, shared with Scalia, to overturn a criminal conviction when a proper reading of the law required it. He paid close attention to the text and grammar of the law while expressing skepticism about letting legislative history guide his decision. “Hidden intentions never trump expressed ones,” he wrote, adding an aside about “the difficulties of trying to say anything definitive about the intent of 535 legislators and the executive.” (Scalia was a foe of the judicial consideration of legislative intent for similar reasons.) And it showed, as well, his understanding that a judge must follow his duty even when it leads somewhere he dislikes. “He cared a lot about what the precedents are,” says the former clerk. “He was not interested in bending them or the usual tricks judges can use for getting around them if they don’t like them.”

  11. avatar HP says:

    This guy is about as good as we’re going to get. Score one for us. If Trump gets to appoint another justice similar to this before his term(s) is/are up, things are going to be looking especially bright.

  12. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    We all need to stop debating over whether Gorsuch is a 9.0 or a 9.5 and be thankful he’s not a 3.2.

    Listen up, fellow Americans, there are several Democrat Senators up for re-election in 2018 in states that voted for Trump. They should be scared, and we should make them terrified that a vote against this pro-2A SCOTUS nominee would invite the wrath of gun owners in their states and end their political careers.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      Define “we?” Would that be brain dead baby boomers like you who live in all-white small towns and think that Illinois’ concealed carry bill is just great (for you) hanging around in chat rooms conforming to the groupthink, signing off with half-witticisms like, “Thanks Todd” and “In Todd we trust?”

      Please, share some more of your legal wisdom with us. If you are capable of reading or understanding Illinois’ one hundred thirty plus page carry bill, I’d be surprised.

      If you didn’t have Richard Pearson at ISRA to send out press releases interpreting the scripture for you, you clowns would have to hire a lawyer to read you the text like a kindergartener.

  13. avatar BDub says:

    In the meantime: http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/144902A.P.pdf

    “individuals who choose to carry firearms forego certain constitutional protections afforded to individuals who elect not to carry firearms.” – Juge James Wynn

    Um, Judge…doesn’t that mean because anyone MIGHT be armed, that everyone loses those contitutional protections?

    Be sure to check out the amazing logic on No-Knock raids too.

  14. avatar Retro says:

    Once again, don’t let perfect be the enemy of good.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      Parroting the mantra of losers and slaves that keeps the lights on at NRA HQ.

      1. avatar RetroG says:

        I’m probably feeding a troll, but…

        I live in Arizona, one of the best places on the planet for firearm freedoms. But the laws aren’t perfect here, so we should all leave or tar and feather the politicians who passed Constitutional Carry laws because they didn’t extend it to all government buildings?

        That’s just stupid.

        And the quote isn’t from the NRA. It dates back to Voltaire in the 16th century AD.

    2. avatar Demo Man says:

      Retro- I’ve been to Arizona several times, from Tombstone up to the Grand Canyon, but I’m not conversant with your carry laws. Do cops and retired cops have to disarm in gov buildings there?

      I know that despite Illinois’ shit carry bill put up by NRA, a retired cop from Arizona can walk down Michigan Avenue and if an on-duty Chicago cop asks him if he is armed, he retains his right to remain silent. There is no Duty to Inform under LEOSA, but lowly citizens and taxpayers have DTI or we get arrested.

  15. avatar Sergio_NC says:

    If anyone is interested, here is a link to the case. http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FCO%2020131231054/U.S.%20v.%20RODRIGUEZ

  16. avatar Ralph says:

    For a person who usually spends his time foaming at the mouth, Larry Pratt’s mild objection was unusually circumspect and, dare I say it, reasonable. Meanwhile, the Democrats are foaming at the mouth like a pack of wild dogs.

    Which means that Gorsuch is probably a great choice.

  17. avatar BC young says:

    The case involved to my understanding; was a police stop which the police disarmed the subject(s) during a probable cause stop. ( See Terry vs Ohio ) Upon further investigation the subjects were arrested for carrying firearms unlawfully. I believe like possession of a firearm by a felon. This wasn’t a case where law abiding citizens were lawfully carrying firearms and the police without cause stopped and seized the weapons without cause.

  18. The GOA is irrelevant. They have small membership numbers, they have a tiny lobbying budget, and they handout almost no money at election time. No one fears the GOA, heck few people know who they are. It’s just the Pratt family employment agency and anti-NRA.

  19. avatar Demo Man says:

    I’ll take an off-the cuff endorsement from Larry Pratt and GOA ten days per week over an endorsement from the Borg Cube at NRA. If NRA is for Gorsuch, it probably indicates that he will endorse the government position.

    Watch what NRA does, not what they say. When it comes to the Supreme Court, NRA failed to support Alan Gura in the McDonald v. Chicago case, Alan Gottlieb and SAF funded him.

    When Gura got to the Supreme Court in 2010, NRA barged into the McDonald case at the last minute and hired insider former Solicitor General Paul Clement to steal ten minutes from Gura’s thirty minute oral argument time in front of SCOTUS.

    When Illinois’ FIFTY YEAR ban on concealed weapons was struck down by the U.S. Federal Appeals Court in Dec. 2012, based on the McDonald precedent, it was NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde that placed Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in Brandon Phelps “NRA backed” concealed carry bill.

    The record in Illinois shows that NRA HQ is a whorehouse stuffed with traitors and rats. If they sold out Otis McDonald, they will sell out every member they have until they go broke. If NRA supports Gorsuch, there’s probably something wrong.

  20. avatar Bob says:

    The last word in the initial Gorsuch quote, “lightly”, can be construed more than one way – not good. I like Gorsuch, but I think “..shall not be infringed upon.” – period – is the proper way to see it.

  21. avatar BigDave says:

    I am very glad this is being talked about here. But I am appalled that it is not talked about ANY WHERE ELSE! I read the American Thinker article, BTW, before all this.

    I am extremely upset at “my” NRA for giving that idiot a blanket endorsement. I could care LESS about abortion. That is 100% a non-issue for me.

    My gun rights, specifically my conceal carry rights, are crucial to me. Gorsuch has NO BUSINESS being on ANY judicial bench. The LAST one would be the SCOTUS. There is no explanation he could give me to convince me otherwise.

    1. avatar Demo Man says:

      Big- what is NRA anyway? Do the voting members really control the Org at all, or is it run by staff? Those in the know have described NRA as the Kremlin, voting once per year is just for show.

      NRA tried to derail the McDonald v. Chicago case in the beginning circa 2007, then hijacked Alan Gura’s work at the last minute before he got to the Supreme Court in 2010 so they could steal credit.

      There is no Master Plan at NRA HQ. They don’t want to win, because then they would be out of business. A person in the know has described NRA as “primarily a fund-raising organization that is focused on gun rights.”

      NRA, Inc. is like the dead hulk of a ghost ship drifting along on the fumes of the 1970s.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email