Explore The NRA Universe Of Websites

APPEARS IN News

Political Report | Media Ignore Facts In Dismissing NRA’s Concerns About Supreme Court Nominee

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Political Report | Media Ignore Facts In Dismissing NRA’s Concerns About Supreme Court Nominee

This feature appears in the June ’16 issue of NRA America’s 1st Freedom, one of the official journals of the National Rifle Association.

When it comes to issues that gun owners care about, media seem to compete for the most outrageous claims. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that while readership of traditional newspapers and trust in media are at record lows, support for the NRA and the values we support are increasing.

The New York Times’ March editorial criticizing the NRA’s opposition to Judge Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination is a contender for the most extreme case of media bias in recent memory. According to the Times, the NRA opposes Garland simply because “it doesn’t like him” and “for no fact-based reason.” Whether the editors are trying to mislead their readers or are simply spouting assumptions without checking facts doesn’t matter. Either way, the embattled newspaper continues to squander what little credibility it has left.

The New York Times’ March editorial criticizing the NRA’s opposition to Judge Merrick Garland’s Supreme Court nomination is a contender for the most extreme case of media bias in recent memory.

Garland’s likability as a person is not at issue. What is at issue is his record in cases related to the Second Amendment. As liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, “Public accountability through the disclosure of votes and opinion authors puts the judge’s conscience and reputation on the line.”

When we opposed Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the Supreme Court, the Times falsely insisted that she had “no record” on the NRA’s issues. True to our warnings—and despite Sotomayor’s hollow assurances during her confirmation hearings—her first vote on the Second Amendment as a Supreme Court justice saw her siding with those who believe the individual rights interpretation in District of Columbia v. Heller was wrong.

Garland’s record leads us to expect more of the same. And while the Times might interpret his record differently, it is journalistic malfeasance to insist that the NRA has no basis for opposing him.

In the 2000 case NRA v. Reno, we sued to block the Clinton Justice Department’s policy of compiling and retaining records from successful firearm background checks. Federal law requires destruction of records from approved checks; prohibits transferring the information to and recording it at a government facility; and prohibits the government from using the records to establish any firearm registration system. The retention scheme, the NRA argued, plainly violated these provisions.  

Of the three judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit who heard the case, Garland was one of two who voted to uphold the Clinton administration policy, thus allowing the federal government to keep records on law-abiding gun owners who passed a federal background check. 

Even more telling, Garland voted in favor of rehearing the pro-gun ruling in Parker v. District of Columbia, the precursor case to Heller. After a three-judge panel held that the D.C. handgun ban violated the Second Amendment, D.C. officials predictably asked the full court to reconsider and save the ban. Garland voted in favor of rehearing the case.

Several media outlets, and a number of left-leaning law professors, have tried to hide Garland’s anti-gun record by portraying these votes as merely “procedural,” in an attempt to confuse people regarding his view of the Second Amendment. But the fact is, judges do not vote to rehear decisions with which they agree. If a judge thinks a panel’s opinion was wrong, he or she votes to have the full court rehear it. If a judge thinks a panel’s opinion was correct, he or she lets it stand. Plain and simple. 

Both Heller andMcDonald v. Chicago were decided by a single vote, and that vote is now gone. 

The NRA will not stand idly by and allow these attempts at obfuscation hide a very fundamental truth: Both Heller and McDonald v. Chicago were decided by a single vote, and that vote is now gone. That means there is no longer majority support among the justices for our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Therefore, it is no exaggeration to say that the future of gun ownership hangs in the balance. 

The Garland nomination also serves as a reminder of what’s at stake in this year’s elections. The next president could have as many as three or four Supreme Court vacancies to fill. There should be no doubt that if Hillary Clinton wins the White House, her nominees would vote to overturn Heller and McDonald. After all, Clinton said at a political rally that the Supreme Court “got it wrong” in Heller. Nothing can be clearer than that.

Heller. McDonald. Names that have come to symbolize the essence of freedom for tens of millions of Americans. In the blink of an eye, a new Supreme Court that embraces the anti-gun views of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton could erase those decisions. Election Day 2016 is our opportunity to make sure that nightmare does not become a reality.

 

TRENDING NOW
Biden Administration Bans Importation of Russian Ammunition

News  

Sunday, August 22, 2021

Biden Administration Bans Importation of Russian Ammunition

The Biden Administration’s Department of State announced that it will soon prohibit the importation of Russian ammunition into the United States. According to a release on the Department of State’s website, “[n]ew and pending permit applications ...

The Second Amendment Now Comes with Government-Issued “Harmful Language Alert”

News  

Monday, September 13, 2021

The Second Amendment Now Comes with Government-Issued “Harmful Language Alert”

The absurdity and dysfunction of the Biden Administration have become so pervasive that it’s easy to become numb to it all. But some things it does are still so outrageous and inconceivable – touching on ...

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Thursday, January 1, 2015

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

Biden Reiterates Call to Ban 9mm Handguns

News  

Monday, July 26, 2021

Biden Reiterates Call to Ban 9mm Handguns

During a July 21 CNN “presidential town hall,” Joe Biden expressed his support for a ban on commonly-owned handguns. Responding to a question about the recent increase in violent crime, the career politician stated,

Atlantic Writer Promotes Culture War on Gun Ownership

News  

Monday, September 13, 2021

Atlantic Writer Promotes Culture War on Gun Ownership

Canadian-born political commentator and George W. Bush-era speechwriter David Frum has taken a break from promoting actual wars in the Middle East to advocate for a culture war on gun ownership here at home.

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

Gun Laws  

Monday, June 30, 2014

Guide To The Interstate Transportation Of Firearms

CAUTION: Federal and state firearms laws are subject to frequent change. This summary is not to be considered as legal advice or a restatement of law.

URGENT! September 8 Deadline Last Chance to Submit Comments on Proposed Rule for Stabilizing Braces

News  

Monday, September 6, 2021

URGENT! September 8 Deadline Last Chance to Submit Comments on Proposed Rule for Stabilizing Braces

In June, ATF published a new notice of proposed rulemaking on its website entitled Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces.” If implemented, the new rule could impact millions of law-abiding gun owners.  If you want to help stop ...

Friday, September 17, 2021

Florida Alert! Florida State Workers Pension Fund Participated in Anti-gun Program

Ashbel C. “Ash” Williams Jr., has the financial wellbeing of Florida’s public employees in his hands.  Williams serves as executive director and chief investment officer of the Florida State Board of Administration in Tallahassee, which ...

ATF Targets Pistol Stabilizing Braces in New Rulemaking

News  

Wednesday, June 9, 2021

ATF Targets Pistol Stabilizing Braces in New Rulemaking

On June 7th, ATF published a new notice of proposed rulemaking on its website...

Michigan: Committee Hearing CPL Reform Bill

Friday, September 17, 2021

Michigan: Committee Hearing CPL Reform Bill

On Tuesday, September 21st, the House Judiciary Committee is hearing House Bill 4003, to reduce the penalty for law-abiding citizens who forget to renew their Concealed Pistol License in certain instances.

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -

More Like This From Around The NRA

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.