Trump stumbles

The Donald has made the first big mistake of his presidency by demanding the House vote on his health care bill.  According to Business Insider:

“… “Guys, look. This is not a discussion. This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill,” Bannon reportedly said to members of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus …”

This was a really dumb move on his part.  It was a rookie mistake he can recover from.

The problem for 2A is that it comes at a bad time.  Democrats want to block Neil Gorsuch’s nomination and this gaff will embolden them.  To get past the threat of a filibuster, Trump, Mitch McConnell and the Senate Republicans need to step down hard on Chuck Schumer.  There can be no comprise here.  Any weakness on the part of Trump or McConnell and Schumer wins.

Gorsuch nomination

Senate confirmation hearings on SCOTUS nominee Neil Gorsuch began yesterday.

The antis are not happy:

Dianne Feinstein attacked the NRA during her remarks:

“… It is the Supreme Court that will have final word … [on] whether the NRA and other extreme organizations will be able to block common sense gun regulations, including those that keep military-style assault weapons off our streets …”

It’s a safe bet both Heller and McDonald will come up during questioning. The Judiciary Committee is set to vote on the nomination April 3 and the full Senate sometime after that.

Ultimately I expect Gorsuch will be confirmed. There isn’t much of a well organized opposition to him, mostly people already angry that Trump won. Chuck Schumer is not doing a very good job at being Minority Leader. I was expecting him to be a much bigger pain than he has been so far.

Please be true

Some rumormongering from Ted Cruz:

Sen. Ted Cruz predicted Thursday that there will be another vacancy on the Supreme Court later this year but provided no explanation for why he believes that is likely to happen. Cruz (R-Tex.) also appeared to suggest that a departure of one of justices from the liberal wing of the court would trigger the opening …”

Considering half the Court looks like death warmed-over this would not be a surprise.

If true, it would be a huge opportunity for gun rights.

Maryland AWB upheld

The 4th Circuit Court has upheld Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban.

I’m not surprised given that the 2nd Circuit Court upheld the SAFE Act back in 2015.  What we really need is for a good, clear decision from SCOTUS on this.  I do not know if the Maryland decision will be appealed or even if it is the best case to be appealed.

Let’s make a deal

Mark Cuban suggests Senate Democrats try to make a deal with Trump over Neil Gorsuch:


This is one of the reasons I didn’t vote for Trump, the possibility of him cutting deals because he lacks a philosophic commitment to limited government. I don’t see that happening right now for a couple of reasons:

  1. Democrats have not yet come to grips as to why Hillary lost.
  2. The leftwing base is going apeshit and would not tolerate any sort of deal.
  3. Trump is pissed at Democrats for obstructing his cabinet appointments.

This being said, depending upon how the political winds blow, I would not rule out either the Democrats or Trump deal-making should there be another opening on SCOTUS.

Trump nominates Gorsuch to SCOTUS

The Donald nominated Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court.

While he has not directly ruled on a Second Amendment case, he has made supportive statements in the past.

Bloomberg’s proxy Everytown has started a petition asking Senators grill Gorsuch on gun control.

The Left is losing their collective minds over the nomination and pretty much everything else Trump has done thus far.  Most amusing was the several thousand protestors gathered outside Chuck Schumer’s apartment chanting, “What the fuck, Chuck?!”  The Post was extremely helpful in printing his home address.

SCOTUS nomination coming

The Donald has announced that he will naming his Supreme Court nominee next week.

Time has a list of his supposed top three contenders.  Of note is Thomas Hardiman:

“… Hardiman is known for protecting gun rights and taking an originalist approach to Second Amendment cases. In Drake v. Filko, which challenged a New Jersey law saying someone seeking a permit must show a “justifiable need” for a gun, Hardiman dissented against the ruling for the state. “Those who drafted and ratified the Second Amendment were undoubtedly aware that the right they were establishing carried a risk of misuse, and States have considerable latitude to regulate the exercise of the right in ways that will minimize that risk,” Hardiman wrote in his dissent. “But States may not seek to reduce the danger by curtailing the right itself.” Much of his dissent was based on the Supreme Court case District of Columbia v. Heller, which is a landmark case on gun rights and arguably Justice Scalia’s most famous majority opinion …”

Newsweek reports 7th Circuit Justice Diane Sykes is also a finalist. On guns:

“… Judge Diane Sykes … wrote a decision striking down a Chicago gun law. The decision found several city ordinances governing shooting ranges unconstitutional, according to the official opinion released Wednesday. Among other regulations, the city banned individuals under 18 from commercial ranges, and restricted their operation to manufacturing districts. Sykes wrote the opinion striking down the regulatory regime …”

Another one is Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison Eid:

“… Among the judges he may be considering is Colorado Supreme Court Justice Allison H. Eid, who in 2012 wrote the unanimous opinion striking down a ban on licensed concealed handguns at the University of Colorado Denver. The ruling was in a lawsuit brought in 2008 by three CU Denver students seeking to have an existing gun ban lifted at the university. The ruling Eid wrote said that the state’s Concealed Carry Act allows permitted weapons to be carried “in all areas” with narrow exceptions, such as K-12 schools and courthouses, that don’t include college campuses …”

Whomever Trump ends up nominating, head clown Chuck Schumer has signaled his intent to be disruptive:

“… Schumer, who has pledged to block a doctrinaire conservative nominee, was among the senators attending an hour-long White House meeting with the president Tuesday. “I reiterated that view in our meeting today, and told him that Senate Democrats would fight any nominee that was outside of the mainstream,” said Schumer in a statement …”

To his credit, Trump isn’t shying away from a fight:

“… Trump and some Senate Republicans are now openly threatening to kill the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees — a pronouncement sure to inflame a brewing battle with Democrats over Trump’s choice to replace the late Antonin Scalia. Trump said Thursday that he would encourage Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to deploy the “nuclear option” — changing Senate rules on a majority vote — if Democrats block his Supreme Court pick. The president’s stance could amplify pressure on McConnell — a Senate institutionalist who is reluctant to further erode the chamber’s supermajority rules — to barrel through Democratic resistance by any means necessary …”

This is exactly what needs to be done.  Republicans have a long history of preemptive surrender. They need to go on an all-out offensive, call B.S. on Schumer, Pelosi and company, and move court nominees and legislation through Congress over their objections.

He better follow through

Trump better follow through on his promise to nominate candidates like Scalia for SCOTUS because the 9th Circuit Court just issued a ruling that a 10-day waiting period to purchase a firearm is constitutional.

The real idiocy about this is that is applies to people who already own guns.

Pushback from Mass. A.G.

I found a link to the Boston Globe with some more antigun pushback from the Massachusetts A.G.:

“In a new fundraising appeal, Attorney General Maura Healey is promising to take President-elect Donald Trump to court … She ticked off new issues that could be litigated, including health care, gun laws, climate change, and Wall Street reforms …”

I guess she could file suit challenging something like reciprocity using material from the antis (see #1 and #2), but how effective would this be?  It is my understanding there were some states rights concerns pre-Heller and McDonald, but those have fallen by the wayside.

States rights

Bearing Arms opines, “This Lawsuit Could Shatter ALL Federal Gun Control Laws“:

“… When Shane Cox began selling his homemade firearms and silencers out of his military surplus store, he stamped “Made in Kansas” on them to assure buyers that a Kansas law would prevent federal prosecution of anyone owning firearms made, sold and kept in the state … The case could reverberate across the country because it cites the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, pitting the federal government’s right to regulate firearms against the rights of states …”

I foresee problems with this.

The Supremacy Clause basically says federal law trumps state law while the Printz case said that states cannot be compelled to enforce federal law.  Following this, the ATF could still enforce the NFA in Kansas.  Unless there is some other 10th Amendment cases that could be referenced here I don’t believe this tacit is going to work.

Twitter Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com