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
National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

On January 3rd, Congressman Richard Hudson (R-N.C.8th) introduced H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2017, which simply allows lawful firearm carriers from any state to carry a concealed firearm in any other state. The bill ...

Your Members of Congress Need to Hear from You on the Hearing Protection Act of 2017

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Your Members of Congress Need to Hear from You on the Hearing Protection Act of 2017

On Monday, Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID) – joined by co-sponsors Sens. Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Rand Paul (R-KY) – introduced S. 59, the Hearing Protection Act of 2017 (HPA). Similar legislation was introduced in the ...

Supreme Court Asked to Review California’s Restrictive Carry Regime

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Supreme Court Asked to Review California’s Restrictive Carry Regime

On Thursday, the NRA-supported case Peruta v. California took an important step towards restoring the right to bear arms in California.  The plaintiffs in the case, California gun owners and the California Rifle and Pistol ...

Alert: WA State Proposes Draconian Gun Ban Bills

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Alert: WA State Proposes Draconian Gun Ban Bills

Inspired, perhaps, by Oscar Wilde (“Moderation is a fatal thing. Nothing succeeds like excess”), Washington State Attorney General Bob Ferguson has announced two new sweeping gun control bills, with Sen. David Frockt (D-Seattle) and Rep. ...

The NRA Bids Farewell to Roy Innis, Civil Rights Champion: June 6, 1934 – Jan. 8, 2017

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

The NRA Bids Farewell to Roy Innis, Civil Rights Champion: June 6, 1934 – Jan. 8, 2017

America lost a civil rights icon and a true free thinker with the death of Roy Innis on Jan. 8. For the NRA, his departure was personal. Mr. Innis served on the NRA’s Board of ...

Jeff Sessions’ Devotion to the Constitution Shines Through in Contentious Confirmation Hearing

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Jeff Sessions’ Devotion to the Constitution Shines Through in Contentious Confirmation Hearing

On January 10 and 11, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held the confirmation hearing for President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for United States Attorney General, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.). Throughout his distinguished career in public service, ...

Increase in Violent Crime: National Trend Driven by Local Politics?

News  

Friday, January 13, 2017

Increase in Violent Crime: National Trend Driven by Local Politics?

The FBI released its Preliminary Semiannual Uniform Crime Report earlier this week and the bad news is that violent crime increased for the second consecutive year.

NRA Applauds the Introduction of the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367

News  

Hunting  

Monday, January 9, 2017

NRA Applauds the Introduction of the Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 367

FAIRFAX, Va. – The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) applauded Congressmen Jeff Duncan (SC) and John Carter (TX-31) on Monday for introducing the Hearing Protection Act, an important bill that gives gun owners and sportsmen ...

Gun Shy Professor Claims Need to Counter Campus Carry

News  

Friday, January 6, 2017

Gun Shy Professor Claims Need to Counter Campus Carry

Do you look back on your college years and remember the impassioned debates, when disagreements over the Periodic Table of Elements, theories of supply and demand, or the status of Pluto as a planet could ...

California: Pre-Litigation Demand Letter sent to DOJ opposing “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” Regulations

Monday, January 9, 2017

California: Pre-Litigation Demand Letter sent to DOJ opposing “Bullet Button Assault Weapon” Regulations

Today, NRA and CRPA’s legal team submitted a joint-letter to DOJ demanding that DOJ withdraw their regulations as a violation of the authority granted under the law.  NRA and CRPA’s legal team also submitted a ...

MORE TRENDING +
LESS TRENDING -
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.