Gorsuch Opinion in Deportation Case Raises Doubts for Gun Owners

by David Codrea

USA – -(Ammoland.com)- “President Donald Trump is concerned that his Supreme Court darling Justice Neil Gorsuch — whose appointment is regularly cited by the White House as a top accomplishment under Trump — is too liberal,” Talking Points Memo reports. “Trump was frustrated by Gorsuch’s recent vote against the administration on an immigration case, which reportedly pushed him to question whether Gorsuch was going to be a reliable conservative voter on the high court.”

The case, summarized by SCOTUSblog, was Sessions v. Dimaya:

“A lawful immigrant from the Philippines, James Garcia Dimaya has lived in the United States since 1992. He has two residential burglary convictions, neither of which involved violence. Based on the convictions, the immigration court and the Board of Immigration Appeals ordered Dimaya removed from the United States. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned the BIA’s order, finding that Section 16(b) was unconstitutionally vague.”

So he can’t be deported for that?

Gorsuch joined “liberal justices” Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer to side with the notoriously “progressive” 9th Circuit’s rationale:

“Rather than assessing whether the particular facts of someone’s conduct pose the substantial risk required under the statute, courts consider the overall nature of the offense, and ask ‘whether “the ordinary case” of an offense poses the requisite risk.’”

Obviously none of the august “justices” have ever encountered a criminal in their homes. Just the presence is an act of violence if one considers the natural jolt to the heart that occurs, and burglars can hardly be certain that the dwellings they break into are unoccupied. That means they do so anyway with full knowledge that they could encounter someone with the odds of further violence being the result.

It also raises the question of just what the hell is wrong with the law where this country can take in foreign nationals, who prove to be scumbag parasites and predators, and not use that alone as justification to send them packing.

That Gorsuch is weak-kneed on “immigration” abuses raises serious questions of direct concern to gun owners (the fraudulent “single issue” excuse-making notwithstanding).

Here’s the challenge for anyone who wants to tell us otherwise:

Audit all credible polls against real-world experience in places like California and then produce credible data – not opinion, not anecdotes, not isolated examples, but something that can be independently validated – demonstrating that “amnesty” and a “pathway to citizenship” for MILLIONS of foreign nationals in this country — both illegally and legally with CURRENT culturally suicidal policies — WILL NOT overwhelmingly favor Democrats and anti-gunners. Show your sources and methodologies for determining this WILL NOT result in supermajorities in state and federal legislatures that will then be able to pass all kinds of anti-gun edicts. Show how this WILL NOT result in nominations and confirmations of judges to the Supreme and federal courts who will uphold those edicts and reverse gains made to date.

How much more proof do we need?

This is not (contrary to what those behind the cultural terraforming to advance a political agenda would have you believe) “xenophobic” or worse. They do that to make people afraid to be called “racists” if they even bring it up. What they won’t tell you is, immigration law protecting the national identity and interests is basically the same policy as Mexico’s.

And Gorsuch hasn’t proven to be that hot on right to keep and bear arms fidelity either, in spite of all the gushing from the gun groups about his ambiguously qualified opinion that “‘the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”

Compare to “shall not be infringed.”

It’s important to note that:

“During his confirmation hearings, Justice Gorsuch assured Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, when asked specifically about the banning of M-16 rifles and the like, that he would follow the law in Heller.”

In many ways, through its recognition of an individual right, Heller was the landmark case we’re told it was. That said, “originalist” Antonin Scalia left the door open for all kinds of infringements with some assertions the antis are taking full advantage of.

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited,” Scalia asserted. Not surprisingly, he sided with stare decisis über alles over “shall not be infringed” as the basis for upholding “concealed weapons prohibitions” and “legitimizing” gun-free zones. But the most damaging point that has been seized upon and has paved the way for the banning of militia-suitable arms is this:

“Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those ‘in common use at the time’ finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.”

“Ordinary military equipment” is not what Scalia focused on, but rather on “the sort of lawful weapons that [militia members] possessed at home.” He used that to imply banning weapons such as “M-16 rifles and the like” would not be an infringement. Why, otherwise, he noted, “it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns … might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.”

Yeah. Kind’a like what Tench Coxe said.

What Scalia and the Heller majority ignored is that the militia, at the time the Second Amendment was ratified, kept the same types of weapons at home as they were likely to encounter when called forth – otherwise, they would be marching off to their slaughter. That’s hardly something that would be “necessary to the security of a free State.”

By definition, all weapons can be made dangerous through their deployment, and the gun-grabbers are quick to spook the herd with “scary evil black rifles” and “high-capacity magazines” that are “weapons of war” and have the sole purpose of “killing as many people as quickly as possible.” But here’s the thing: If Miller recognized the people — who still comprise the “unorganized militia” as recognized by U.S. Code — have a right to bear “ordinary military equipment,” that presupposes “common use” is not a benchmark for commercial popularity or sporting use. And that would mean that “dangerous and unusual” apply to unconventional restricted items that are not part of “ordinary military equipment” or of any “gun control” edicts that have been enacted or are being proposed.

President Trump having second thoughts about Gorsuch calls into question who he’s listening to and how he makes his nomination decisions. He disregarded a key  campaign promise with a recent nomination that will add yet another “anti-gun” judge to the 9th Circuit.

Mark Jeremy Bennett, a former Hawaii attorney general “had backed a limited interpretation of Second Amendment rights that was overturned by the Supreme Court.” Juxtapose that against the 9th Circuit recently losing the one sane voice it had on the Second Amendment with the #MeToo-pressured resignation of Judge Alex Kozinski.

While typically in judicial confirmation hearings, nominees have been able to rely on an “out” giving them a pass on answering specific questions, think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers.  While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation, there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. Such hearings are supposed to be, among other things, high-level employment interviews, not pre-coronation ceremonies.

As such, here are questions gun owner rights advocates should expect nominees for the federal bench shouldn’t have any trouble answering:

  • What did the Founders mean by “A well regulated militia”?
  • What did the Founder mean by “being necessary to the security of a free State”?
  • What did the Founders mean by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”?
  • What did the Founders mean by “shall not be infringed”?
  • How can past Supreme Court opinion specifying protected arms as those being “in common use at the time” not be applicable to the types of firearms needed for militia service?

I’d also add a tangentially-related question, one not directly part of the “single issue,” but one that nonetheless is being used to undermine it:

What Constitutional basis is there to “secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” by exercising protective measures over who may enter the country, who may stay and who may become a citizen?

If those questions can’t be asked, what’s the point in pretending we’re living under anything resembling the rule of law designed by the Founders?

%d bloggers like this: