NSSF: Gun Control Foes Don’t Fear Judge Amy Coney Barrett. They Fear the Law

(Photo: NSSF)

By Larry Keane

Foes against U.S. Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett will line up this week to disparage only the fifth woman nominated to the nation’s highest court. The test balloons have been floated, including attacks on her faith, her family and now, predictably, her view on gun rights.

Her foes don’t fear Judge Barrett. They fear the law.

They just know Judge Barrett will follow it. She’s vowed to faithfully apply the law as it’s written, not to twist it to a pre-determined end to satisfy a political agenda.

Political Misdirection

The gun control cabal showed their cards. Over the weekend, U.S. Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday, “I’m going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett’s views, her views on reaching back and reconsidering and overturning long settled precedent are not just extreme, they’re disqualifying.”

Sen. Coons went as far as to say President Donald Trump was attempting “court packing” by fulfilling his constitutional duty to nominate an appointee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. Yet, Sen. Coons was silent on former Vice President Joe Biden’s refusal to say what he would do with Democratic demands to pack the court after the election, even after Biden repeatedly dodged questions of whether voters deserve to know his intentions on court packing.

“No they don’t….” Biden said. “I’m not gonna play his game, he’d love me to talk about, and I’ve already said something on court packing, he’d love that to be the discussion instead of what he’s doing now.”

Legal Stalwart

Judge Barrett’s opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee emphasized her commitment to originalism or interpreting law as it was written.

“It was the content of Justice Scalia’s reasoning that shaped me,” Judge Barrett’s statement reads. “His judicial philosophy was straightforward: A judge must apply the law as written, not as the judge wishes it were. Sometimes that approach meant reaching results that he did not like.”

She added, “I believe Americans of all backgrounds deserve an independent Supreme Court that interprets our Constitution and laws as they are written. And I believe I can serve my country by playing that role.”

SEE ALSO: Forbes Infographic: ‘Countries With The Most Firearms In Civilian Hands’

Judge Barrett’s dissent on Kanter v Barr, in which she disagreed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, quoted Justice Thomas Alito’s opinion in McDonald v Chicago, noting the court “treats the Second Amendment as a second-class right.” This is strikingly similar language used by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch when they vented their frustration at the Supreme Court’s refusal to grant review in Peruta v California in 2017 and wrote that it “reflects a distressing trend: their treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right.”

Their Worst Fear

A fifth Supreme Court justice that is ready and willing to apply the Second Amendment as it is written is a frightening scenario for gun control advocates. It’s not that gun control fears Amy Coney Barrett. They fear that Judge Amy Coney Barrett respects the law. Shannon Watts, who heads the billionaire-gun control mogul Michael Bloomberg’s gun control enterprise Moms Demand Action, melted down at the idea that Judge Barrett would examine legal text and commit to following the law when deciding Second Amendment opinions and any other cases. Kris Brown, of the gun control group Brady United Against Gun Violence, told NPR she had “grave concerns” of Judge Barrett’s commitment to law over ideology.

CNN reported that Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law, said the seating of Judge Barrett to the Supreme Court could usher in a renaissance of Second Amendment cases, despite the Court rejecting 10 pending reviews earlier this year.

“It seems likely that the confirmation of Judge Barrett would remove that uncertainty and open the pipeline to a flurry of cases, perhaps ranging from the constitutionality of criminal [non-violent] felon-in-possession statutes to large-capacity magazine bans,” Vladeck explained.

There is no shortage of cases working their way to the Supreme Court. Two cases are pending review in California, one at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, that could have profound impacts. Duncan v Becerra challenges California’s ban on standard capacity magazines, a law which was struck down by District Court Judge Roger Benitez and upheld when appealed by California’s Democratic Attorney General Xavier Becerra. The other, Miller v Becerra, challenges California’s ban on modern sporting rifles (MSRs). Judge Benitez denied Attorney General Becerra’s motion to dismiss that case, which will move forward and be heard. Judge Benitez wrote of the law banning MSRs in his order denying dismissal.

“If ever the existence of a state statute had a chilling effect on the exercise of a constitutional right, this is it.”

Judge Barrett’s opponents don’t fear her. They fear the law and her commitment to it.

Larry Keane is Senior Vice President of Government and Public Affairs and General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association.

***Buy and Sell on GunsAmerica! All Local Sales are FREE!***

{ 5 comments… add one }
  • DELCO October 17, 2020, 8:09 am

    The media has now officially been totally controlled by the left. Except for a few the democrats can put out any message they like and the media will push that agenda . If that isn’t bad enough, any other views are now censored or blocked completely. This has now affected an entire generation who believes things like the Russia /trump scandal was real, and that our country is 100% racist. The media has succeeded in making the 2 major political parties seem like the bloods vs the crips, blue vs red. The entire entertainment industry is in such fear of speaking out against the blue party. Term limits are an absolute must. We also should not allow anyone of any company to be allowed to donate more then $10K to any candidate. George soros has single handily changed the political landscape in more then 6 states by donating millions that elected district attorney’s that would usually not be qualified to spit shine our shoes. Why we allow someone who doesn’t live in a county to impose their agenda is beyond understanding. Why we allow people in Congress to stay in office for decades is dangerous. Yes they have to keep being elected but we all know that once they get in with the help of wealthy donors that the snow ball of influence and money make it much easier for that congressman to keep their seat. Senator leahy has been in office 44 years, the guy has zero in common with today’s issues. So many like him. Why do we allow senators to run for president or VP , then after traveling the country on other people’s money when they lose, they can return to congress and say thanks for keeping my seat warm while they lifted their national status . Very basic changes would go a long way to helping to solve problems that are not hard to fix.

  • Frank October 16, 2020, 10:52 am

    Great article, but the title is misleading. Shouldn’t it be titled “Gun Control ADVOCATES… Fear the Law”. I am opposed to “Gun Control” that makes me a “foe” of it. I understand the implication that the gun control crowd is our foe, but the wording could have been clearer. Thanks!

  • Clint October 16, 2020, 9:51 am

    Remember your US Govt class in High Screwel? The Judicial Branch of govt is the weakest of the three, Legislative being the strongest, as that is where we place the politicians to represent us. In actuality, any judgement by SCOTUS is supposed to be informational, not law changing. When conflict between the Constitution and law comes up, it is the job of the Legislature to redo the law by changing or repealing it. If it is not done this way, then we have traded one King in England, for 9 in DC. But, an informed electorate is primary to the proper functioning of government, from knowing exactly what is going on in Congress, by accurate reporting of truth, then we can make a choice at the ballot box, and that is why term limits are not needed. But you have to know the truth, and right now, we are living in the equivalent of 1930-40’s Germany, and Joseph Goebbels is running the media and telling you exactly what Democrats want you to hear, and nothing else.

    • Michael J October 16, 2020, 11:20 am

      I agree with a bit of difference regarding term limits. We have seen first hand how lifetime career politicians start out as stellar candidates only to become the self-serving arrogant. Term limits would be a method to prevent outside influence from taking deep root and keeping them in place. Representing the people was their first promise made and broken.

  • Andrew Ling October 16, 2020, 7:50 am

    Or you should say the opposition generally fears the fear itself?
    They fear the unknown. Such fearful sounds, destruction at the end of the muzzle, annihilation of the enemy, taking a life to sustain another, quick and easy end to life, etc.
    Ignorance is their calling card. Not knowing the totality and usefulness of the implements that the American gun owners do all(I am hoping) believe in. We respect one another deeply if we are all better for each other, in one way or another. This respect for another, do not come cheaply. We work very hard at it. My life’s experience as an American gun owner(all my life) has been very normal and satisfying. I treat each and every firearm that I own with respect and proper care.(handling, of course) I try to instill in my children what it mean to be free and to respect others for their persuit of their happiness. Our Constitution defines us all. I believe in the American system of government and that there are no equal. I also respect the debate over the Judge Barrett’s nomination. As long as she will uphold the Constitution, I am all for her. We have nothing to fear but fear itself.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend