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
MA Supreme Judicial Court Holds Old Nonresident Carry Licensing Scheme Unconstitutional But Upholds New Law

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

MA Supreme Judicial Court Holds Old Nonresident Carry Licensing Scheme Unconstitutional But Upholds New Law

On March 11, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts issued two decisions concerning the Commonwealth’s firearms carry licensing scheme for nonresidents.

Oregon Court Of Appeals Reverses Lower Court Decision, Lifts Hold on Ballot Measure 114

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Oregon Court Of Appeals Reverses Lower Court Decision, Lifts Hold on Ballot Measure 114

On Wednesday, March 12th, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had declared unconstitutional Ballot Measure 114, which imposed a permit-to-purchase scheme and banned the possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. ...

NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

News  

Second Amendment  

Friday, February 7, 2025

NRA Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights

Today, the White House announced a new Executive Order to protect and expand the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans. This is the first action taken by President Donald J. Trump to carry through ...

New Mexico: Semi-Auto Ban Legislation Held Over in Committee Until Friday

Thursday, March 6, 2025

New Mexico: Semi-Auto Ban Legislation Held Over in Committee Until Friday

Yesterday the New Mexico Senate Judiciary Committee met to continue discussions on Senate Bill 279 (GoSAFE). The author did not accept the committee substitute to amend the near all-encompassing ban on semi-auto firearms with equally ...

Washington: Gun-Free Zone Expansion Bill Scheduled for Hearing on Tuesday

Friday, March 14, 2025

Washington: Gun-Free Zone Expansion Bill Scheduled for Hearing on Tuesday

On Tuesday, March 18th, the House Committee on Civil Rights & Judiciary will hold a public hearing on Senate Bill 5098, a gun-free zone expansion bill. The hearing has been set for 10:30AM.

New Mexico: Anti-Gun Extremists Introduce Sweeping Gun Ban

Wednesday, February 5, 2025

New Mexico: Anti-Gun Extremists Introduce Sweeping Gun Ban

As they have tried in the past, anti-gun radicals in the New Mexico Senate have introduced Senate Bill 279, the "GOSAFE Act," a near all-encompassing ban on semi-automatic and NFA firearms.

Colorado: FOID Bill Passes House Judiciary With More Amendments

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Colorado: FOID Bill Passes House Judiciary With More Amendments

Yesterday, March 11th, Senate Bill 25-003 underwent another transformation during a late-night hearing in the House Judiciary committee, ultimately passing with amendments along a party-line vote. 

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Governor’s “Public Health Emergency” Carry Ban in NRA Challenge

Saturday, March 8, 2025

New Mexico Supreme Court Upholds Governor’s “Public Health Emergency” Carry Ban in NRA Challenge

In 2023, New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued an executive order declaring gun violence a “public health emergency” and banning the carry of firearms in various locations throughout the state.

Florida: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in House and Senate Committees

Thursday, March 13, 2025

Florida: Pro-Gun Bills Advance in House and Senate Committees

This week, the Florida House and Senate Criminal Justice Committees passed multiple pro-gun bills: House Bill 759 restores the ability for young adults to acquire firearms, Senate Bill 952 and House Bill 6025 are companion bills that further protect our Second Amendment Rights ...

New Mexico: Senate Finance Staff Reviewing Semi-Auto Bill

Wednesday, March 12, 2025

New Mexico: Senate Finance Staff Reviewing Semi-Auto Bill

Yesterday, Senate Finance committee posted that their staff is reviewing SB 279 as a part of their Wednesday meeting. While this is not a formal hearing, this could be a decision point on whether Senate ...

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.