Statement from the NRA-ILA:
With Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a firearm for self-defense. Four justices believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do not. President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners. Obama has already nominated two Supreme Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach this time. In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial record shows . . .
that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Therefore, the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.
Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA, says Merrick Garland’s record on the Second Amendment is unacceptable to anyone who respects the U.S. Constitution and an individual’s fundamental right to self-protection.
He is the most anti-gun nominee in recent history. This should come as no surprise, given President Obama’s disdain for the Second Amendment. He has consistently shown a complete disregard of the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Garland’s history of anti-Second Amendment rulings support the conclusion that were he to be confirmed he would vote to overturn Heller.
- In 2007, he voted to give D.C. a second chance to have its handgun ban upheld after a three-judge panel struck it down. At the time, this was the most significant Second Amendment case in America.
- In 2004, Garland voted against rehearing another Second Amendment case (Seegars v. Gonzales), effectively casting a vote against the individual right to keep and bear arms.
- Justice Scalia was the author of Heller v McDonald. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The Heller decision stands in the way of gun-control supporters’ ultimate goal of banning and confiscating guns.
- If Heller is overturned, the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes would cease to exist.
- In 2000, Garland voted in favor of the federal government’s plan to retain Americans’ personal information from gun purchase background checks despite federal laws prohibiting national firearm registration and requiring the destruction of these records.
- Judge Garland weighed in on several significant firearms-related cases, including Parker, Seegars, NRA v. Reno,. He voted against the rights of firearm owners on each occasion.
The examples of Garland’s disdain for the right to keep and bear arms go on and on, including in a major case upholding the then-existing Clinton “assault weapons” ban against a constitutional challenge
It’s almost certain that Garland agrees with Hillary Clinton when she said “the Supreme Court is wrong” that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.
In his nomination, President Obama has again placed partisanship and antagonism towards gun owners above the higher callings of his office.
If Garland is confirmed, Obama would be taking America back in time to an era where Supreme Court justices uphold the anti-gun policies of the president. Obama is hoping Garland will overturn the Supreme Court precedent that stands in the way of confiscatory gun control, like the gun ban and confiscation programs implemented in Australia.
Like I have been saying for 8 years, an Obama nation will be an Abomination.
How the left will enforce confiscation without sending cops door to door. Collecting Social Security? Not if you don’t turn in that XDS you bought last year. Income tax refund check, ditto. Child custody fight? Renew your electrician’s license? Not so fast. Where is that S&W Shield you bought in Feb 2014. Driver’s license? Just as soon as you turn in that AR 15 on your credit card. Bye the way if you want to keep that bolt action rifle you have to pay the new Firearms Property tax, $175 dollars this year, probably go up next year. That 100 round box of 22 ammunition is $11 bucks plus the $10 ammo tax. Wait that’s hollow point. That tax is $50! You want a building permit for a swimming pool? Think again.
Yes, that’s exactly how it will be. There will be some no-kock raids, but not many. Much cheaper and safer to send a letter.
I started stocking up on ammo in 2007 for the same reason.
Obama will continue to appoint elitist judges who believe they know what is best for Americans, with no limits on the power of The State.
Love the reference
TL;DR version: NOPE.
If this guy gets a hearing expect ammunition to fly off the shelves even faster then what we have seen over the last 8 years. The firearms (and ammunition) salesman of the century is the guy that currently occupies the White House.
As the media, including Fox News, trumpets his moderate credentials, Congress for now will not consent to the appointment. The lame poker faced administration cry of approve now or wait for Hillary is a bluff, however King Obama will find a way to appoint. Then we raid the national archives, rip out the Constitution and wipe our asses with it.
Why would you want to do to the Constitution what this administration already does?
So exactly what happens if they overturn Heller? Civil war? Would confiscation start immediately? Cause that could get real ugly real quick. This aint Australia. I could see States wanting secede from the Union and frankly, their would be more than a few of us willing to bolster their ranks.
Australians did not have a Constitutional right to firearms and fell into the following two categories:
1, Those that gave them up.
2, Those who hid their stuff.
Here in the US it is the above two categories that gun owners will also fall into if they came for our guns, very, very few would fight. I cover gun shows for a dealer and hear ‘from my cold dead hands” comment all the time, but when I ask these people when was the last time you contacted your senator/rep I always get the same answer, “I don’t want to get on some list’. If they won’t do the small stuff they most definitely won’t do the big stuff.
I’m not talking about lone gun owners going rogue here. I’m talking about States seceding from the Union. Thats a whole different animal. And are you then saying if the Scotus overturns Heller somehow confiscation kicks right in? (I honestly dont know)
I would bet that full-scale confiscation would start immediately where there are enough goons. Places like California and New Jersey where gun control has been de-facto for decades. And anything on a registry in Mass., D.C., Etc…. Gun control is very popular with the heavily urbanized progressive demografic, and most of these places have created a protected class of Police. Cops, like most people are motivated by money, and would love to keep their guns and their income. Private handgun ownership is almost already gone thanks to the roster, but the cops never complain cause they can buy all the cool handguns they want.
We have already seen instances of confiscation in California; the Gov knows every Handgun imported into the state since 1998 and all long guns since 2014. And gun ownership is relatively popular in California ~25% of the state population or ~9.2 million people, that is approximately 3% of the national population. All of these people could become “prohibited persons” overnight and it would be “legal” (unconstitutional laws aren’t laws) for the state to do that. There are ~80,000 cops in California and 18,000 Army Guard and 4,900 Air Guard. I would be difficult to resist a concerted effort, as few people would care enough to do. Most Californians would just lay down and take it, handing in their guns during the likely amnesty period.
California controls everything about its population including the water and electricity in most places. It would be difficult to gather a large scale resistance without water. Not to mention most Californians think that Government is god and that everything that the state does is holy. I guess I can’t comment too much on other states but Californian’s would be done.
Not all of us are that afraid . Im willing to bet Im on a ton of “lists”. Id gladly ask to be put on more. A lot of us don’t have a hell of a lot to lose. Just being here might get even you on a list.
If they overturn Heller, we will be right back to where we were before Heller. Anybody remember 2007?
We had gun friendly states (like mine, Idaho) and we had gun-unfriendly states. We kinda still do, despite Heller and subsequent rulings.
If Heller gets overturned, we will still have gun friendly states, and gun-unfriendly states. But states that were being slowly pushed into Constitutional Compliance will be able to regress. I doubt anything will change for the worse in Idaho, Arizona, or other like minded states, but it will most likely change for the worse in DC, Ilinois, New York, etc.
Thanks. Thats what I’m trying to get my head around
You’re most welcome.
I’m more concerned with President Hillary Clinton, having been emboldened by President Obama’s lawlessness, goes full totalitarian and imposes sweeping bans via “executive action”. The GOP has already proven they won’t stand in the way. I hope my concerns are unfounded.
The GOP will be powerless to stop anything. If enough pro-Clinton voters show up to vote Queen Hillary in, then you can bet they will be sticking around long enough to also vote for the democrat Senate and candidates members also on the ballot.
If Hilary wins, she will very likely have a democrat controlled House and Senate for at least two years. Two years is a long time and much can be accomplished. Obamacare got passed within a two year window. You can bet that Hillary has a long list of things that she plans to ram through while she can control the outcome.
This is, indeed, how it works wrt state laws. But if Heller is overturned, it would open the door for federal legislation of guns. Think federal UBC, and possibly AWB, depending on what Congress looks like past November.
I can’t agree. Before Heller, we had an awful lot of people who knew damn well what the constitution said, and acted accordingly. Once they are told by the SC that their understanding was not correct, 2A is meaningless, their actions may well change. IOW, we will *not* simply be back to 2007, it will be much worse than that, since now they will tell us the precedent is cast in concrete, rather than simply being a temporary situation, it cannot ever be changed. I honestly doubt that we could get a new 2A passed, today, so it would be all over except for the possibility of civil war.
If they overturn Heller than they have signed a declaration of war. I for one, see no reason to bow before my enemies.
My view of those enemies is rather simple. They fall into two categories.
Those who have been properly dealt with… and those who are still alive.
When was the last time anything came out of all that “molon labe” talk?
Lots of late, what happens is “they” do indeed come and take it, all of it with sometimes little but mostly no resistance. The guy who spent $20 on the sticker for his now federally owned AR moves the imaginary line in the sand for whatever face-saving reason they can come up with. Life goes on, occasionally the person may get some of the items back (ammo “destroyed”) but that person has now been educated.
The guy who makes Youtube videos screaming about the coming showdown and telling the feds how he, the last chance for the Republic and his friends from the net he only knows by their handles (OpCutieDie, CaptainCarnage99, FPSWarrior69 and the other 17.9 million ex-SEALS on Youtube) will bring them to their knees. Will maybe show up after someone else has actually initiated and nearly finished the job.
That’s assuming the feds haven’t long since taken and destroyed everything the guy owns as he likes to splash it’s existence all over the net. Not that it matters as the feds at the first smell of trouble had closed all branches of Tactitards R’ Us. Leaving self styled operators no supply lines with which to employ their COD learned war-fighting skills.
If any armed resistance happens it will be started and at least initially led by the quiet guys who have spent the last 20 years creating an untraceable arsenal, training during their “vacation” making close contacts and networks of like minded folks, preparing, planning, watching. Those guys are scary as f*****. The operator in this situation may well wish to stay home as these guys are going to be running a functional military with low tolerance for things such as folks acting “all operator-like”.
It could also, if conditions are just right, start from the average person on the street and spread fast, in this scenario the operator will miss most of the action trying to decide on whether to charge outside with a one or two point sling and picking from his 100+ $5 Amazon knives. Decisions made, he will run outside stealthily screaming “Freedom” only to be picked off by a “camper”, otherwise known as an actual honest to god professional sniper.
This is what happens:
To GRW – I don’t think your comment was directed at me… but… Just for the record, I was not advocating anyone sling on their rifle and run out the front door screaming. My point was that is somehow the libs tried to summarily remove the right of the people to keep and bear arms, that i suspect there will be States that would then wish to secede from the Union, and many people who would then want to move to those States (bolster the ranks), which as we know from our past – is essentially Civil War. It’s not hyperbole. It’s not wild doomsday crazy gun nut talk. It’s reality. We’re talking about perhaps THE fundamental keystone to our Constitution, the Amendment that protects all others, if not just by deterrent alone. I know many Lib sheep are deluded and to them this is all just silly talk, but they are the same people that couldn’t tell you who fought in WW2. They are clueless. They only know to follow what they are told, and they don’t even know they are being ‘told’ it either. They blindly believe the latest media meme with full ignorant bliss. All that it takes is for one State to stand up for the Constitution and it could quickly escalate from there. Civil War is no longer a crazy near impossibility, as it always seemed to be before. I just don’t think the people who are advocating complete civilian disarmament realize what they are saying. It takes generations to affect change like that. You couldn’t possibly try to pull an Australia here without running a very high potential of sparking a civil war. Let’s hope none of the above happens.
They’ll just slowboil us. Even in Idaho/Montana/Wyoming back in the 90s, when they were much more secession friendly than they are now, it was mainly all talk.
Nowadays, whatever is left of the “don’t thread on me” crowd; will panic, hand over everything and grab ankles, as soon as the feds suggests secession may mean their new God, “home values”, will “decline” a few percent.
Civil war will eventually come. The same way it is coming to Mexico. Governments are never sustainable, as they are always and everywhere nothing more than elaborate excuses to loot, and as time moves on, eventually everyone will decide it’s better to be a looter than a looted. But 100+ years of publicly funded indoctrination has succeeded: America is no longer made up of people willing to actually fight for their freedom, as in fight for real. They will eventually fight, but only once it is for outright survival, in the most literary sense.
The Somalis did fight, and pulled it off. But they 1) Never suffered under a century of almost universal public indoctrination teaching them to be good, unquestioning subjects and little else. 2) Seem to be born almost universally unruly, hence hard to rule, no matter where they happen to end up 3) Young, rather than a bunch of geriatrics who will reliably cheer the tyrants on, as long as the tyrants ;promise to rob the young to pay for what they themselves claim they have been “promised.” Never mind the promise was made by a bunch of known liars promising things they never even pretended to own.
No, as someone stated above, there will be a delay while the bureaucratic machine gears up, and then it will be increasing fees every year you don’t turn the guns in, no renewal of licenses, IRS issues, etc. Depending on how quickly they can fully nationalize health care, you will have to turn your guns in before you can see the doctor. Once they nationalize food distribution, same with that.
Meh, you still gotta come get ’em …
Call, write, email, fax your senators don’t do it once, do it once daily.
Yes. This. Also, get on GOA’s mailing list, even if you’re not a member. They are constantly sending out alerts with pre-written emails/letters. Just fill in your info and you’re good to go. Mine go a couple of gun hating Democrats (I’m in upstate NY) but I will never let them rest.
Or would overturning Heller mean that only Militias can bear arms? We know where that leads. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is not going to go down without a fight. Maybe the libs havent been to a gun store lately, but you can barely get a lane anymore without waiting half a day. The LGS’s cant keep guns on the shelves, and that was before today. The only place this would lead is Civil War. I hope the libs realize what they are asking for. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Except we’re not talking about apples here.
All overturning Heller would mean is that we would go back to the way things were in 2007. States which want to regulate gun ownership would be free to do so. States that don’t want to regulate gun ownership simply won’t do it.
It won’t mean civil war. Most people today wouldn’t even notice, because Heller and subsequent decisions really haven’t made much of a difference yet due to political foot dragging.
That makes sense. Thanks for the input.
Heller had a profound effect (indirectly, via McDonald – but if Heller goes, so does McDonald) on Illinois. If it goes down, I fully expect the state to tear down their current program, and go may-issue or even no-issue.
I live in Illinois. I will not comply!
If you hold a FOID card I think the argument could be made that you have already complied. Cuba and IL are the only two places on earth that register the owner not the firearm.
I have a FOID card and I don’t own any firearms.
Say what you will about a FOID card, it comes closest to the “moderate” view of gun control. Universal background checks without registration of firearms. Background checks of ammunition purchases withou any real burden on the gun owner. Or course it has no real effect on crime. I do like the fact that I can do a private to private gun sale and know the other guy is not a prohibited person without paying a FFL, and really no difficulty. And I have lived in states with gun permits before, I will take a FOID card any day of the week over that B.S.
Sure if you consider the state running daily criminal and mental health background checks against you ‘moderate’. This is in addition to date of sale. If you live in Cook county there is a Sheriff’s police unit that collects revoked FOID at the minimum timeframe available… meaning that if the gun owner doesn’t initiate the sale of a handgun same day as they get the ISP notice, gun owner won’t meet the waiting period timeline for the sale when the police show up with a warrant to confiscate. All very moderate … please tell me you are kidding right.
Also, assuming that you are correct as to crime, what you have now is simply a building block. Every time a despicable crime is committed somewhere, the call will go out for more intrusive laws and controls, and the stage will already be set, the road paved with bad intentions, until we reach the point of full-on armed confiscation and government sanctioned murder, with nobody thinking anything of it. The only answer which makes any sense at all is no one at all, in any branch of government, has the slightest idea what might be owned by anyone else or where he bought them and for how much. The *ONLY* legitimate use for serial numbers is to prove (by way of a receipt) that you are the owner of a firearm whose ownership is contested, or to identify your gun as one of a faulty batch needing repair.
FOID? Maybe he lives in Chicago.
Just outside. Have to admit one thing is nice, major city with shall issue. FYI I have CPD cops spot my carry (putting up the top on the Miata) and they didn’t even ask to see my papers. And the other nice thing, is no liberal can say gun ownership is going down in Illinois
Hay Ross, so you have no CCW? Never filled out a 4473?
Yes on the CCW (I hold 2) yes on the 4473 and a yes on the NFA. We all have complied is one way or another, I’m surprised someone didn’t challenge me on this earlier.
NONSENSE. ASSume all you want. I can go 5 miles into Indiana and at least buy ammo with NO ID. If they ask for a FOID it’s voluntary. I’ve even sent a “sketchy” fellow who easily purchased ammo with no ID. You people grossly overestimate how other states(and counties outside of Cook) comply. I even have an Indiana friend who can hide any purchase. And this thread is about wrecking the 2A. Folks don’t take kindly to LOSING rights. Just ask the gay “married”…a new American revolt would transpire.
Is it right to save one part of the Constitution by perverting another part? I can’t find anything in the Constitution about a president only being able to appoint in the first three years of his (or her) term. Do I want someone who is anti-gun, of course not. But he needs to be considered by congress, and rejected for his disregard of an amendment.
Valid grounds to reject
Given the ages of the Justices we could very well be one Atlantic City bus tour accident away from one President getting to pick the whole bale. If this needs addressed it may as well be now, this one already has his two appointees.
No part of the constitution requires the Senate to hold hearings or approve nominees. Basically, it’s just as legal as a pocket veto.
Yep. In fact, no Supreme Court nomination has ever been approved at this late stage in any presidency.
And court positions have sat vacant for up to two years while the Senate refused to confirm anyone the president nominated (not that that’s necessarily desirable…just pointing out that it’s not only within the authority of Congress, but also there’s plenty of precedent for delay and refusal).
He deserves no such thing. It is the duty of the Senate to advise and consent. Dipshit did not accept any advice, although the Senate rather loudly advised him to not bother to select a candidate, and if you really insist, then he has gotten his hearing already, the Senate heard that Obama nominated him, and they rejected him. End of story. If the joke living in the white house was intended to appoint anyone he chose, the constitution would say so. The Senate should delay consideration until mid-November, then make the decision with the assistance of the president-elect, or not, in light of the future makeup of the Senate.
I hope and pray that Congress will reject him.
?ON SIGHT 5 MILLION MAN NRA whitehouse protest,bring it to them, not letters an emails.How commited are we, as commited as MLK,, Brother Farakan, the hippies of war protest? Would we be willing to loose our jobs to save the 2A? …..I doubt it, got car payments,n house motrage, n stuff. You understand, nothing persanol, I just dont wanna loose my stuff
Hmm, Obama’s nominee is a gun-grabber who doesn’t believe us peons have a right to bear arms?
Make no mistake, this is the clearest evidence for the Dems hatred for Scalia. By nominating the very judge who wanted to uphold the law that Scalia and Scotus shot down in Heller Obama has declared war on us gun owners. Make no mistake, this is pushing us toward a breaking of the Republic.
“Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA, says Merrick Garland’s record on the Second Amendment is unacceptable to anyone who respects the U.S. Constitution and an individual’s fundamental right to self-protection.” Says the bureaucrat who pays NRA state lobbyist Todd Vandermyde to set up armed citizens in Illinois for police execution. NRA, Inc. is the entity that has an unacceptable record on the 2nd Amendment. At least you know where you stand with President Obama. He’s consistent, unlike the backstabbing traitors at NRA.
Cox & Chuck Cunningham pay scum like Vandermyde to cut deals with anti-gun police unions that encourage cops to kill armed citizens with abominations like Duty to Inform in their garbage carry bills. What would gun owners do without “help” from NRA, win?
Oh, just shut the fuck up already.
Hey now demo is just doing his job, gotta make sure bloomburg gets his moneys worth.
Demo is just a mentally ill individual who has a fetish for Todd V. that spouts the same canned nonsense in any gun forum or newspaper comment section he can find. Not kidding , this guy has posted the same comment in my local paper’s comment section about 50 times.
Saw this, your neck of the woods.
Here you are coming out of left field once again with a completely irrelevant snipe.
Both you and Demo Man want to ride your hobby horses in the wrong arena, and it’s getting fucking tiresome. What I said to him applies to you as well.
Actually, I take that back. Demo Man is at least generally addressing the main topic, albeit in a delusional way. I shouldn’t have compared him and you, it’s an injustice to him.
LOl, that was a snipe? Overreact MUCH? You miss your calm-me-down medication?
Cloward-Piven Strategy, right? Demo Man, this is the wrong audience for that.
The Progressives want to disband the 2nd amendment using unconstitutional means, and millions of people are preparing to fight a war to keep it. I think that about sums it up.
I emailed Toomey to oppose this Judge’s appointment. Yeah, Toomey says he will oppose this President’s choice for the nomination. But get this, he would be happy to consider Garland’s nomination by the next President. I told him that his position to reject the nominee based on who nominated the candidate rather than the merits of the nominee himself was disturbing. How chickenshit.
Mad props to the NRA for not parroting the bullshit the GOP is spouting about confirming any nominee. I disagree about the partisanship. This guy is damn near unimpeachable in his record. Just because you disagree with how he ruled doesn’t mean he’s wrong or a bad choice. Scotus rules on a lot more than the 2a and finding a nominee who is ideologically aligned with you is 100% against the purpose of the Supreme Court.
Au contraire. Anyone who is too stupid to understand the word “infringed”, or too arrogant to understand his job is not to invent laws, is wholly unqualified to sit on SCOTUS, end of story.
Make sure you contact your state representatives
You all are paranoid lunatics, misinformed about history and wrong about the history of guns and gun rights in America. God help the United States with people like you having such an impact on our politics.