In 2018, Washington voters passed I-1639, which banned the sale of semi-automatic rifles to 18-to-20-year old adults. IMG NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- In 2018, Washington voters passed I-1639, which banned the sale of semi-automatic rifles to 18-to-20-year old adults and to out of state residents—even transfers through FFLs in the buyer’s state.
The NRA and Second Amendment Foundation joined forces and challenged I-1639 in 2018. The court rejected Washington’s Motion to Dismiss our lawsuit in 2019, allowing the case to proceed. But the court ultimately upheld I-1639 in August 2020.
The fight continues. NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit and filed their opening brief today. “Young adults cannot be excluded from the protections of any enumerated right, including the Second Amendment,” the brief argues. “There is no historical precedent for depriving young adults of the ability to purchase semi-automatic rifles.” The brief further argues that I-1639 violates the commerce clause of the Constitution because Washington does not have “any legitimate state interest” in regulating the sale of firearms outside of the state.
Please stay tuned to www.nraila.org for future updates on this and all of ILA’s efforts to defend your constitutional rights.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
A Santa Clara County grand jury has indicted two sheriff's office officials, Apple's security chief and a private business owner in an alleged bribery scheme relating to concealed carry licenses. iStock-1055138108
U.S.A. –-(AmmoLand.com)- A Santa Clara County, California grand jury has issued indictments accusing two-county Sheriff’s Office officials, a local business owner and the Global Security chief for Apple, Inc., with bribery in an alleged effort to trade iPads in exchange for concealed carry licenses for Apple employees.
A news release from the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s office named Undersheriff Rick Sung, Sheriff’s Capt. James Jensen, Apple Chief Security Officer Thomas Moyer, and insurance broker Harpreet Chadha as the subjects of the indictments.
AmmoLand News spoke directly with Sean Webby, public communications officer for the District Attorney’s office, who said the defendants will be arraigned on Jan. 11, 2021. At that hearing, he said, the court will determine whether there is enough evidence “to go forward to a trial.”
According to CNET, a newsgroup that covers the tech industry, the indictments came following a two-year investigation into the sheriff’s office. The San Jose Mercury News is also reporting on the charges.
“Undersheriff Sung and Captain Jensen treated CCW licenses as commodities and found willing buyers,” DA Jeff Rosen alleged. “Bribe seekers should be reported to the District Attorney’s Office, not rewarded with compliance.”
In the DA’s prepared statement, the office further alleged, “In the case of four CCW licenses withheld from Apple employees, Undersheriff Sung and Cpt. Jensen managed to extract from Thomas Moyer a promise that Apple would donate iPads to the Sheriff’s Office. The promised donation of 200 iPads worth close to $70,000 was scuttled at the eleventh hour just after August 2, 2019, when Sung and Moyer learned of the search warrant that the District Attorney’s Office executed at the Sheriff’s Office seizing all its CCW license records.”
In Chadha’s case, the statement alleged, “Sung managed to extract from Chadha a promise of $6,000 worth of luxury box seat tickets to a San Jose Sharks hockey game at the SAP Center on Valentine’s Day 2019. Sheriff Laurie Smith’s family members and some of her biggest political supporters held a small celebration of her re-election as Sheriff in the suite.”
Concealed carry permits are not easy to obtain in Santa Clara County. California is a discretionary issue state, so each law enforcement agency can be as generous or as tight with carry permits.
According to Rosen’s office, “The various fees required to obtain a CCW license generally total between $200 and $400.”
In California, as in most other states that do not have so-called “constitutional carry” statutes, carrying a concealed firearm without a license or permit is a crime. The District Attorney’s news release acknowledged “Although state law requires that the applicant demonstrate “good cause” for the license, in addition to completing a firearms course and having good moral character, the sheriff has broad discretion in determining who should qualify.”
According to the CNET report, “Moyer's attorney insisted on his innocence of the charge and said he was ‘collateral damage’ in a bitter public dispute between the Sheriff's Department and DA's office.”
The story quoted Moyer’s attorney, Ed Swanson, who said in a statement his client “did nothing wrong and has acted with the highest integrity throughout his career. We have no doubt he will be acquitted at trial.”
Over the years, gun rights activists have contended that “discretionary issue” laws can easily create an environment where the process can be abused, with permits being issued only to certain officials, wealthy elites, or political supporters of the local sheriff. That does not appear to be what is alleged in the Santa Clara County case, however, but a straight instance of alleged bribery.
AmmoLand checked and found that as far back as 2011 there were complaints about how Santa Clara County issued carry permits. In December 2011, the California County News reported, “Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith is under fire over her department’s process for awarding concealed weapons permits. For instance, a former police officer who owned an investigative firm had his permit request turned down by Smith, so now the Sheriff’s Department is facing a lawsuit for allegedly handing out the permits in an arbitrary manner.”
Smith is still sheriff.
Other states have “shall issue” requirements that mandate that applicants who pass background checks and meet any other statutory requirements must be issued a carry license or permit.
Earlier this year, a group of gun rights organizations including the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, California Association of Federal Firearms Licensees, Inc., and California Gun Rights Foundation sued several Bay Area governments including Santa Clara County over regulations that allegedly banned the operation of gun stores and shooting ranges.
They were joined by at least four businesses and several individual citizens. That lawsuit was filed in federal court.
About Dave Workman
Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.
Georgia – -(AmmoLand.com)- Whether or not President Trump’s legal challenges succeed, the Georgia runoffs are critical for Second Amendment supporters. In addition to what might or might not be passed into law, there are a number of other things on the ballot in these races. Second Amendment supporters need to pull both David Perdue and Kelly Loeffler over the line because a 50-50 Senate under President Trump would still be bad news.
Why would that 50-50 Senate be bad news? Because we’d have to rely on Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski to stick with us in every fight. Do you consider them reliable? They’re arguably less reliable than Jon Tester and Joe Manchin, and those two, while they vote against most anti-Second Amendment legislation, stink on the secondary issues, like judicial nominations.
What are those secondary issues that are at stake in the Georgia runoffs? Let’s look them over.
Judicial Nominations
The last two Supreme Court nomination battles saw unified Democratic opposition, including from those who proclaim their support for the Second Amendment (looking at you, Tester and Manchin). Should Trump’s legal challenges succeed, a 50-50 Senate could very well see Romney or Murkowski announce they will not support the nomination of any judge Trump nominates.
On the flip side, a 50-50 Senate under Biden would see anti-Second Amendment extremist Kamala Harris as the tie-breaking vote, which means there would be no way to stop any anti-Second Amendment judge. To say nothing of the potential for a packed court (do you really think Tester and Manchin would stand against such efforts?).
Campaign “Reform”
We have outlined the dangers of various campaign “reform” schemes pushed by anti-Second Amendment extremists. When we get the chance to present our arguments, we usually win our fellow Americans over, particularly when the emotions are not running high after a horrific crime or act of madness. Anti-Second Amendment extremists know it, too. Why else are they specifically targeting the ability of pro-Second Amendment groups to get their message out?
Trump’s veto pen can stop it, but it is better to avoid a veto in the first place. A 50-50 Senate could very well see Mitch McConnell forced to bring up a bill (if Pence presides) or unable to stop the For The People Act should Schumer be running the Senate (if Harris presides). Once they have this tool, a lot of Lois Lerner's wannabes will be coming for Second Amendment supporters.
Who Runs The Senate
In a 50-50 Senate, no matter if the tie-breaking vote is cast by Mike Pence or Kamala Harris, Chuck Schumer will have power. The GOP would be one defection away (remember Jim Jeffords?) from being in the minority. Would Murkowski cut a deal? Would Romney go “independent” after “examining his conscience” in the wake of a Trump win? The cloud would be hanging over Second Amendment supporters.
The fact is, a 50-50 Senate places our rights at extreme risk. Not only do we risk losing our Second Amendment rights, but we could also easily see our First Amendment rights abridged as well… with the system rigged against us for the foreseeable future. To build a firewall to protect our rights, Second Amendment supporters need to back Loeffler and Perdue, then also support the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund and their Institute for Legislative Action, in order to be ready for 2022 and 2024.
About Harold Hutchison
Writer Harold Hutchison has more than a dozen years of experience covering military affairs, international events, U.S. politics and Second Amendment issues. Harold was consulting senior editor at Soldier of Fortune magazine and is the author of the novel Strike Group Reagan. He has also written for the Daily Caller, National Review, Patriot Post, Strategypage.com, and other national websites.
John Katko (R-NY) talks about his experiences growing up with firearms. IMG Congress.gov
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Editor’s Note: We are pleased to post the latest of our occasional Q&A features with an elected official who supports hunting and the shooting sports. NSSF thanks Congressman John Katko (R), New York’s 24th District, for agreeing to talk with us.
Who introduced you to hunting/shooting sports and at what age?
My father introduced me to hunting and the shooting sports at a very young age. He started by stressing gun safety. My brother and I learned to shoot at first with a 1924 German-made bolt action single shot .22 caliber rifle. I have since taught my three boys to shoot with the same gun. After taking my first hunter safety course as a teenager, I began to use a shotgun and shot a lot of clay pigeons with it. Ever since, each year I have almost exclusively hunted deer.
Describe your most recent hunting/shooting sports activity? With whom?
Opening Day for deer season in Upstate New York is always the weekend before Thanksgiving. My oldest son Sean and I hunted this year on opening day, as we always do, on my in-law’s farm. We both got deer that morning. It is always a special time to go hunting with my son and to hang out at the family farmhouse. We met up with some locals whom we have hunted with for years in the afternoon and did a few drives and got another deer. It was a great time.
Describe your favorite shooting sport/hunting activity.
As you may have gathered, I love deer hunting! I have been doing it for 40 years. The best thing about it is the beautiful sounds of the woods. I always start and end my hunting day in my cherished tree stand sitting halfway up a ridge with a beautiful view of the woods and surrounding area. To hear the tranquil sounds of the breeze on the trees and the various animals running around, chipmunks, minks, fox and even some coyotes are awesome. Of course, the excitement of seeing a deer and deciding whether to take it is the ultimate hunting rush.
Which piece of pending legislation related to the firearm industry is particularly important to you and why?
Since coming to Congress, I have consistently heard from sports enthusiasts and firearm owners in Central New York about the patchwork of laws they have to navigate when traveling across state lines. With this in mind, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to advance the bipartisan Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38). Congress must continue working to provide certainty to law-abiding firearm owners and ensure the fair recognition of concealed carry permits across the country.
What do you see as the challenges and opportunities for hunters and shooting sports enthusiasts in the upcoming congressional session?
In addition to advocating for sensible legislation to protect the rights of sportsmen and sportswomen, I believe Congress has a responsibility to encourage conservation and preserve the American outdoors for future generations of sportsmen and sportswomen. I was proud to support the introduction and enactment of the Great American Outdoors Act, which will significantly increase the availability of federal resources for conservation projects in my district and across the country. For sports enthusiasts, it is critical that lawmakers work with federal agencies to fully implement the Great American Outdoors Act and continue to prioritize other federal conservation programs such as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act and Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
When “Gun Safety” is used to discriminate against gun purchasers based on ethnicity.
When “Gun Safety” is used to discriminate against gun purchasers based on religious beliefs.
When “Gun Safety” is used to discriminate against gun purchasers based on culture.
When “Gun Safety” is used to discriminate against gun purchasers based on language.
When “Gun Safety” is used to discriminate against gun purchasers based on economic class.
When “Gun Safety” is used to discriminate against gun purchasers based on political opinions.
When “Gun Safety” is used to claim a public health epidemic.
When “Gun Safety” is used to justify anti-gun Presidential Executive Action.
When “Gun Safety” is used to close the so-called “gun show loophole”
When “Gun Safety” is used to lie about so-called “common-sense gun laws”
When “Gun Safety” is used to take so-called “weapons of war” “off the street.”
When “Gun Safety” is used to claim that guns should only be allowed for hunting.
When “Gun Safety” is used to restrict the number of guns a person may own.
When “Gun Safety” is used to take away 2nd Amendment Rights for a misdemeanor conviction.
When “Gun Safety” is used to take away 2nd Amendment Rights for a non-violent felony conviction.
When “Gun Safety” is used to increase the waiting period on a NICS delay (from 3 days to 10 days) before a gun transfer is allowed.
When “Gun Safety” is used by colleges and universities to ban campus carry.
When “Gun Safety” is used to end the online sale of guns.
When “Gun Safety” is used to end the online sale of ammunition.
When “Gun Safety” is used to end the online sale of gun parts and accessories.
When “Gun Safety” is used to justify “Red Flag” property confiscation without Due Process.
When “Gun Safety” is used to require, under the threat of criminal prosecution, unreliable and dangerous “smart gun” technology.
When “Gun Safety” is used to require, under the threat of criminal prosecution, the reporting of lost or stolen guns.
When “Gun Safety” is used to “buy back” guns the government never owned in the first place.
When “Gun Safety” ignores Thomas Jefferson: “Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.” (I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.)
When “Gun Safety” again ignores Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
When “Gun Safety” again ignores Thomas Jefferson: “The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
When “Gun Safety” further ignores Thomas Jefferson: “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
When “Gun Safety” still ignores Thomas Jefferson: “A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be your constant companion of your walks.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores Benjamin Franklin: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
When “Gun Safety” again Benjamin Franklin: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
When “Gun Safety” ignores Noah Webster: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores William Pitt (the Older): “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores Patrick Henry: “The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores Samuel Adams: “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores George Mason: “To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores Zachariah Johnson: “The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores Dachau Survivor Theodore Haas: “These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, a dictatorship has not happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.”
When “Gun Safety” ignores that the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed.”
I will oppose “Gun Safety” when it is being used as a lie to fool the public. I resent the destruction of its true meaning and its use for political purposes to take away our rights.
As a Certified Firearms Instructor and responsible gun owner, I will always support TRUE GUN SAFETY.
About Evan Nappen
Known as “America’s Gun Lawyer,” Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Host of the praised “Gun Lawyer” Podcast, author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, weapons history, and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades, it’s no wonder he’s become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry, and national media outlets. Called on regularly by radio, television, and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news, Evan has appeared on countless shows including Fox, CNN, Court TV, WOR-New York. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America.
Philadelphia’s Sheriff’s Office was blamed in a report for failing to account for 210 taxpayer-funded service firearms iStock-884188404
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Philly, we’ve got a problem.
The city that’s got a mayor waging a gun control campaign against law-abiding gun owners can’t account for more than 200 of their own guns. Philadelphia’s Sheriff’s Office was blamed in a report for failing to account for 210 taxpayer-funded service firearms and firearms that were seized. They went missing between 1977-2015, but only came to light in 2019 when a confidential complaint tipped off authorities that “15 long guns” were missing.
That began an investigation that showed the city’s missing guns issue was 173 percent bigger than what was first believed. The people tasked with enforcing laws, including court security and prisoner transfers, couldn’t follow their own regulations and keep track of their guns.
Philadelphia’s gun control cabal, including Democrat Mayor Jim Kenney, is sure to miss the irony here. For clarity’s sake, this is the situation detailed clearly. The same people who want to use law enforcement to curb the gun rights of law-abiding citizens and track and confiscate guns can’t even keep track and control the ones for which they’re responsible. Officials are saying there’s nothing to see here, move along. It was a problem with the old regime.
A year-long investigation by the City Controller’s office blames “physical disorganization,” and “poor record-keeping” by the sheriff’s office. That might have been obvious when investigators saw firearms in piles on the floor and haphazardly stored. Firearms belonging to the sheriff’s office and those that were seized were comingled and some were still loaded when stored.
Seventy-one firearms recovered in the investigation are “unknown,” meaning there’s no originating paperwork. Investigators can’t determine of the firearms were duty firearms purchased by taxpayers or if they were seized, and if they were seized, from whom they were taken. Sixty-seven firearms that were seized were never documented by serial numbers, making origin determination impossible.
The Controller’s investigation believes that at least 25 of the 101 taxpayer-purchased sheriff’s firearms just weren’t returned by deputies when they left the force. Another word for that is theft. It’s worse, though. The City Controller’s investigation found evidence of trading at gun shops with city sheriff’s office guns. At least 13 seized firearms and one service firearm were traded for 10 new firearms through a local firearm retailer. The retailer provided investigators receipts and records of the transactions and there’s no allegations or evidence of wrongdoing by the firearm retailer, but serious questions remain for sheriff’s authorities for illegal transactions.
That doesn’t wash. The ones who were supposed to be minding those who were minding the armory had no idea what was going on. It might have been because Mayor Kenney has been too busy on a campaign to shave off Second Amendment rights in his city. He pushed to illegally enact his own gun control legislation even after Pittsburgh had been rebuked by Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court for a similar attempt in 1993 and was again rejected in 2019 by an Alleghany County judge.
Mayor Kenney invoked gun control to protect police after an hours-long shootout with a criminal occurred in 2019 when officers attempted to serve a warrant. He said stricter gun control was needed after several officers were shot and injured. But Bill Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, said the mayor was grandstanding on his own failure to enforce laws. The suspect was previously arrested nearly a dozen times, for charges and convictions that involved illegal possession of guns, drug dealing, and aggravated assault. He was sentenced by a federal judge to 55 months in one instance. He was previously convicted for illegal possession of firearms.
The suspect that shot officers was a convicted violent criminal, who was barred from possessing a firearm. That didn’t stop Mayor Kenney from capitalizing on the shocking event to push his gun control agenda.
“There are plenty of laws. It’s not a lack of gun laws,” Johnson explained in a National Review interview about the suspect, Maurice Hill. “Hill is not in the business of obeying laws.”
The mayor of the City of Brotherly Love can’t honestly look his fellow citizens in the eye and answer that he’s properly accounting for the guns for which he’s responsible. Mayor Kenney is less interested in doing his job to be responsible for the city’s firearms and more interested in pushing his own gun control agenda.
About The National Shooting Sports Foundation
NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org
Justice Alito released a keynote address speaking on, “The Declination of Individual Liberty.” Image NRA-ILA
U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- On November 12, Justice Samuel Alito of the United States, Supreme Court released a keynote address for a Federalist Society event. Speaking on “The Declination of Individual Liberty,” he discussed the alarming erosion of our fundamental constitutional rights – notably, the right to religious freedom, the right to freedom of speech, and Second Amendment rights.
Certainly, the COVID-19 pandemic has given rise to “never before seen restrictions” on individual liberties. Justice Alito observed that more generally, the health crisis has also “highlighted disturbing trends that were already present before the virus struck.” These include a diminishing tolerance for religious beliefs protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Another “once-cherished freedom that is falling in the estimation of some segments of the population” is freedom of speech, with “growing hostility to the expression of unfashionable views.”
These rights are in danger of becoming second-class or “second-tier” constitutional rights, much like the Second Amendment, called “the ultimate second-tier constitutional right in the minds of some” by Justice Alito.
The U.S. Supreme Court did not even rule on the contours of the Second Amendment until this century, in the landmark cases of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago two years later. Since then, with one exception, the Court has denied every petition seeking review of a court decision focusing on the Second Amendment. The lone case was New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. City of New York, a challenge to that city’s gun ownership and transport laws under the Second Amendment, Commerce Clause, and the right to travel.
Many interesting things happened after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, all aimed at preventing consideration of the case on the merits and a ruling that could potentially invalidate gun control laws across the nation. After arguing for years that its restrictions were necessary to protect the public, New York City admitted that the laws had no bearing on public safety, and replaced the challenged restrictions with less onerous provisions (the State of New York enacted its own version of a legislative fix). Relying on these late-breaking changes to the facts of the case, the city asked the Court to throw the case out as moot, without briefing or argument.
When the Court then refused to jettison the case, five United States’ senators, all Democrats, filed an amicus brief insisting that the case be dismissed, signed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) as counsel of record. This bizarre document attacked the NRA, the Federalist Society, and the conservative justices of the Court before concluding with an “or else” warning of political retribution: “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it is ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’”
Justice Alito describes what happened next: “After receiving this warning, the Court did exactly what the city and the senators wanted. It held that the case was moot. And it said nothing about the Second Amendment.” While being clear that the Court’s decision was not influenced by the “senators’ threat,” he notes the danger that the “outcome might be viewed that way by the senators and others with thoughts of bullying the Court … [and] may provide a foretaste of what the Supreme Court will face in the future.”
A Washington Post opinion piece (Why so sour, Justice Alito? Your side in the Supreme Court is winning) scoffed at these concerns as “inconsistent with reality” and nothing more than “a distillation of conservative victimhood.”
To date, though, neither Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris has ruled out “restructuring” the judiciary by adding seats to the Supreme Court. Days ago, the largest labor union in the United States, the National Education Association, which had endorsed Joe Biden, released its playbook for a Biden-Harris administration and called for adding new judgeships to the federal district and circuit courts.
“Court-packing” was raised in the senators’ brief, on the campaign trail, and in the priorities for the incoming administration not because the “Court has influenced sensitive areas like voting rights, partisan gerrymandering” and others, but because the “pattern of outcomes” is seen as insufficiently aligned with the radical agenda increasingly being favored by Senator Whitehouse and his colleagues. To borrow the language of the Washington Post, the underlying assumption is that the wrong “side” on the Court is “winning.”
The opinion piece misses the critical point made by Justice Alito on partisanship and the courts. An independent judiciary is inexplicably tied to the rule of law and the protection of constitutional rights against incursions motivated by what is politically popular or preferred by a majority of legislators. “Our obligation is to decide cases based on the law. Period… Judges dedicated to the rule of law … cannot compromise principle or rationalize any departure from what they are obligated to do.” Whenever fundamental rights are imperiled, “the Supreme Court and other courts cannot close their eyes.”
Court “restructuring” will threaten more than just the individual right to keep and bear arms. Freedoms of religion, speech, and assembly are also under attack. Now, as ever, independent federal courts are essential to protect the constitutional rights of Americans from the whims of bullying politicians and repressive governments of the day.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
