Previous Post
Next Post

Senator Ted Cruz brought the crowd to their feet when he entered the room at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Thursday, and he didn’t disappoint the crowd of conservative activists who had gathered to hear him speak. In a freewheeling conversation with commentator Mark Levin, the Texas Solon declared that Washington Democrats have gone “bat-crap crazy” due to their anger and resentment over the results of the 2016 election. He then predicted that’s only going to get worse when the next vacancy occurs on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Senator Cruz expressed particular scorn for the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, which just this week upheld Maryland’s ban on certain centerfire rifles and magazines. He accused the judges of tearing the heart out of the Second Amendment by “inventing” a test where rifles and other firearm accessories would not be protected by the Bill of Rights if they were useful in a military context.

“This test isn’t just questionable…it’s not just a little bit out there…it is nuts!” Senator Cruz exclaimed. “The Second Amendment was designed explicitly to protect weapons that would be useful in a military context.” He reminded the audience that in 1789, citizens were expected to show up for militia duty with their own muskets, the high-powered military-grade long guns of the era. “Apparently, the Second Amendment [only] protects feather dusters,” he said sarcastically. “The Second Amendment is not about hunting [or] target shooting. It’s about protecting your home, your family and your life.”

The Senator also expressed dissatisfaction with the 9th Circuit’s recent decision stopping the Trump administration’s executive order restricting immigration from certain countries, claiming that it was another example of ‘activist judges’ ignoring the Constitution and the laws passed by Congress in order to impose their own policy preferences.

Putting Judge Neil Gorsuch on the Supreme Court could help matters, he said, given the Judge’s reputation as a staunch constitutionalist and originalist. The Senator cautioned, though, against the idea that Gorsuch by himself would be able to radically reshape the judiciary. “The Scalia seat is defense. We won’t do better than him. The best we can do is uphold victories like the Second Amendment [in the Heller and McDonald decisions.]” The next vacancy, he said, is where conservatives will have the opportunity to “get back and restore basic constitutional protections.”

The Senator then dropped a mini-bombshel, predicting that there would likely be another Supreme Court vacancy this summer. “If that happens, the left will go full armageddon meltdown then.”

“Democrats are living in an alternate universe right now…. They are in denial, and they’re angry…. I’ve never seen anything like it.” He characterized their obstructionism and repeated use of the filibuster in the Senate as being motivated by a fear on the part of some Democrats in Congress of being “primaried” because they were seen as insufficiently left-wing by their base, whom Mr. Cruz described as being “bat-crap crazy.”

When asked about his legislative priorities, Second Amendment activists may have been disappointed by the Senator’s response. The Texan said that in 2017 he hoped that Congress could repeal Obamacare, confirm Judge Gorsuch and the rest of Trump’s cabinet appointees, pass fundamental tax reform “ideally a flat tax,” and pass the legislation he co-sponsored to de-fund the United Nations until they reverse their stand against the State of Israel.

With all due respect to the Senator, that sounds like weak beer. Both the National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and the Hearing Protection Act are awaiting action in the House. Considering how much time the Senator devoted to expressing concern over the Second Amendment’s fate in the Courts, it would have seemed natural to talk about the practical steps that he and the rest of Congress could take to help secure those rights against infringement. But that didn’t happen.

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Cruz is a smart guy and very right-wing. If he had a personality that people could identify with, he would have been the Republican nominee. Alas, he’s unrelatable.

    He’d be better on the bench than in the Senate. I think he’d be great on SCOTUS.

    • I left the President spot on the ballot blank, but I would have voted for Cruz. I care about the Constitution, and I believe him when he says he will fight to protect it.

        • Thats asinine… State religion. That was everyones stupid argument against him when he ran for president too.

          Most Christians dont want a state religion and dont want to force their religion on you like Islamic extremists. Constitutionalists believe in the separation of church and state. Put 2 and 2 together and hopefully get 4?

  2. My favorite Senator…get ’em Ted! Yeah I’d like to know what inside info Ted has. Could be a certain evil hag about to croak?!? Regardless of all pro-gun hopes and dreams it ain’t a priority to most pols. I doubt it will ever be…

  3. Remember Ted Cruz tried to pass Grassley-Cruz off as “protecting” gun rights on his campaign website (may still be up). What it actually does is de-privatize medical records and give billions to the corrupt ATF with only a requirement they please don’t use it for Fast and Furious type stuff. He also didn’t co-sponsor the HPA till this year.

    He’ll give lip-service to the 2A, but when it counts you’ll never find him.

  4. I like Ted though I never thought he was a presidential winner. I’m a little surprised that Ted didn’t mention the fact that the Supreme Court Heller decision explicitly cites bread-and-butter military weapons as the ones that are protected. And the decision also states that the more extreme military weaponry may be banned for public use (whatever that means). No M134 minigun for you!

    I recall the above because I happened to know that the Navy routinely uses and trains with very short barreled shotguns for sweeping enemy intruders from their ships. You know, the type that have been banned from public use for decades.

    • Shipboard security teams with short barreled shotguns? Interesting. When I retired in 2011, the DDG I was assigned to was using regular Mossberg 500s. The VBSS team didn’t have short barreled shotties either.

      • Oh stop with the SBS and SBRs. The only reason there are any laws about barrel length is they where trying to ban handguns. Not much of a point to ban handguns if someone can have a sawed off shotgun

    • Sorry to break it to you but the SBS bit is incorrect. From firsthand experience as a ship’s Weapons Officer and VBSS Officer, the only shotguns in a shipboard armory are stock Mossberg 500s.

  5. The courts are a last (unreliable) defense against unconstitutional legislative action.

    How about the GOP spend less time worrying about the courts and more time passing legislation so the courts don’t have to get involved?

    Let’s hope that happens. Otherwise it will start to sound like a familiar reprise… “vote for us again, even though we didn’t do what we promised, because we’ll stop the other guys from doing everything they promised!”

  6. I’ll believe the “pro-gun” Republicans once they start passing some legislation instead of just giving lip service. They can complain about the 4th circuit and states like Maryland all they want but it’s nothing but crickets when the people start asking for federal preemption laws to stop these rogue states from crushing the rights of its population.

  7. Ted sounds great, but the idea he has access anywhere is laughable. He’s made himself so unlikable everywhere, the idea that someone would actually confide in him is asinine. He’s just throwing red meat to CPAC and playing the actuarial table odds to make himself look like a prophet who knows things.

    His defense was particularly milquetoast here, from not discussing military arms, not discussing legislation to override this, etc. We’re getting sold a rotten bill of goods, courtesy of Ted himself. Just like his CRUCIAL help in Heller that made all the difference right? I mean, we can cite the parts where Scalia quoted him right? Or are we talking about how he nursed the case when it looked unlikely?
    Oh, you meant when he pushed hard pro-2nd amendment legislation!

    Wait, he hasn’t done anything but attempt to sound smart and super pro-gun while not doing anything? Huh. Imagine that.

Comments are closed.