NRA “Strongly Opposes” The Nomination Of Merrick Garland

The National Rifle Association released the following statement this afternoon concerning the nomination by President Obama of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the US Supreme Court.

SCOTUS Nomination: Merrick Garland
Justice Scalia’s tragic passing, there is no longer a majority of
support among the justices for the fundamental, individual right to own a
firearm for self-defense. Four justices
believe law-abiding Americans have that right – and four justices do
not. President Obama has nothing but contempt for the Second Amendment
and  law-abiding gun owners. Obama has already nominated two Supreme
Court justices who oppose the right to own firearms
and there is absolutely no reason to think he has changed his approach
this time. In fact, a basic analysis of Merrick Garland’s judicial
record shows that he does not respect our fundamental, individual right
to keep and bear arms for self-defense. Therefore,
the National Rifle Association, on behalf of our five million members
and tens of millions of supporters across the country, strongly opposes
the nomination of Merrick Garland for the U.S. Supreme Court.” Chris W.
Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA

Garland’s record on the Second Amendment is unacceptable to anyone who
respects the U.S. Constitution and an individual’s fundamental right to

is the most anti-gun nominee in recent history. This should come as no
surprise, given President Obama’s disdain for the Second Amendment.

He has consistently shown a complete disregard of the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

Garland’s history of anti-Second Amendment rulings support the conclusion that were he to be confirmed he would vote to overturn

2007, he voted to give D.C. a second chance to have its handgun ban
upheld after a three-judge panel struck it down. At the time, this was
the most significant
Second Amendment case in America.
In 2004, Garland voted against rehearing another Second Amendment case (Seegars v. Gonzales), effectively casting a vote against the individual right
to keep and bear arms.

Justice Scalia was the author of
Heller v McDonald. Heller affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right. The
Heller decision stands in the way of gun-control supporters’ ultimate goal of banning and confiscating guns.

Heller is overturned, the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes would cease to exist.
2000, Garland voted in favor of the federal government’s plan to retain
Americans’ personal information from gun purchase background checks
despite federal
laws prohibiting national firearm registration and requiring the
destruction of these records.

 Judge Garland weighed in on several significant firearms-related cases, including
Parker, Seegars, NRA v. Reno,. He voted against the rights of firearm owners on each occasion.

examples of Garland’s disdain for the right to keep and bear arms go on
and on, including  in a major case upholding the then-existing Clinton
weapons” ban against a constitutional challenge

almost certain that Garland agrees with Hillary Clinton when she said
“the Supreme Court is wrong” that the Second Amendment protects an

his nomination, President Obama has again placed partisanship and
antagonism towards gun owners above the higher callings of his office.

Garland is confirmed, Obama would be taking America back in time to an
era where Supreme Court justices uphold the anti-gun policies of the
Obama is hoping Garland will overturn the Supreme Court precedent that
stands in the way of confiscatory gun control, like the gun ban and
confiscation programs implemented in Australia.

2 thoughts on “NRA “Strongly Opposes” The Nomination Of Merrick Garland”

  1. It’s almost certain that Garland agrees with Hillary Clinton when she said “the Supreme Court is wrong” that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

    With all due respect to whoever writes the NRA's press releases, this statement is entirely unnecessary. It relies completely on speculation ("almost certain") and outrage/emotion (name-dropping Hillary), and contributes little (if anything) of substance to the piece as a whole.

    Personally, I'd even go a step farther and say that the opportunity to name-drop Hillary and her asinine quote is its sole purpose. But that's just my opinion.

  2. I feel as if guns should be used as a safety device. Having guns is not bad but using it carelessly and with bad intentions is never good. This will make things safer and secure but the only thing making it worse is the attitude of people towards guns. Guns should be used to safeguard the people around you, not to bribe or threaten them.
    MA Gun License

Comments are closed.