NRA Applauds Neil Gorsuch’s Nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court

Leave a comment

H/T AmmoLand.

I watched President Trump nominate Judge Neil Gorsuch to be a Supreme Court Justice.

I listened to Judge Neil Gorsuch speech and I was convinced he his the man for the court appointment.

Judge Neil Gorsuch

Judge Neil Gorsuch

Fairfax, Va. — The National Rifle Association (NRA) applauds the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch to fill Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat on the United States Supreme Court.

“President Trump has made an outstanding choice in nominating Judge Gorsuch for the U.S. Supreme Court. He has an impressive record that demonstrates his support for the Second Amendment,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA-ILA.

“We urge the Senate to swiftly confirm Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, just as it did in confirming him to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit by a unanimous voice vote.”

During his tenure on the Tenth Circuit, Gorsuch has demonstrated his belief that the Constitution should be applied as the framers intended. To that end, he has supported the individual right to self-defense. Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.”

“On behalf of our five million members, the NRA strongly supports Judge Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. We will be activating our members and tens of millions of supporters throughout the country in support of Judge Gorsuch. He will protect our right to keep and bear arms and is an outstanding choice to fill Justice Scalia’s seat,” concluded Cox.

Established in 1871, the National Rifle Association is America’s oldest civil rights and sportsmen’s group. More than five million members strong, NRA continues to uphold the Second Amendment and advocates enforcement of existing laws against violent offenders to reduce crime. The Association remains the nation’s leader in firearm education and training for law-abiding gun owners, law enforcement and the armed services. Follow the NRA on social at and Twitter @NRA.

Read more:
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Unions Just May Find They’re Out of Business – Federal Right to Work Is On the Way!

Leave a comment

This is from Joe For America.

Companies and employees will benefit when unions are no more.

The unions raise dues and waste the dues on supporting many agendas, their members want no part of like abortions.

I personally will not shed any tears when the unions finally die hopefully that will happen real soon.


Today, there are 28 states that require employees to join a union if their employer is unionized, and their union dues – campaign contributions to the Democratic Party – are automatically deducted from their checks.

The plaintiffs in a lawsuit that represents a landmark effort to reestablish the right of individual teachers and other public employees to decide for themselves whether to join and pay dues to a union are one step closer to having their case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

According to the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has granted the motion by the attorneys for lead plaintiff and California elementary school teacher Rebecca Friedrichs to decide her case, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, on the basis of the pleadings, without a trial or additional oral arguments. The court’s decision means Friedrichs and her nine co-plaintiffs may immediately file a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case was filed against the National Education Association, the country’s largest teachers union and it’s possible that the case could be heard by the US Supreme Court as early as next fall.

This is an important case, perhaps one of the top three in importance in decades, because public employee unions are nothing but money funnels straight from taxpayers pockets to Democratic office holders.

It works this way. Public employee unions “negotiate” with their employers who are typically Democratic office holders in large cities and big blue states.  The unions secure fat contracts for their members.  Members’ dues are automatically deducted from their paychecks.  Union leaders who are knocking down salaries well in excess of $200,000 and who have virtually unlimited expense accounts, then turn around and fund Democrats in the next election.

Here’s the scorecard of political donations by a number of public employee unions since 1989.

Rank Organization Total ’89-’14 Dem % Rep %
2 National Education Assn $75,194,932 46% 3%
3 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $67,343,802 76% 0%
12 Service Employees International Union $40,625,095 83% 2%
13 American Federation of Teachers $38,801,158 89% 0%

Note that the numbers don’t add up to 100%.  That’s because these unions, especially in California, spend a fortune on ballot initiatives that favor the unions and are 100% supported by Democrats.

We noted the success that Scott Walker has had in Wisconsin with Act 10, a right-to-work law that he got through the Wisconsin legislature in 2011.  The impact on Wisconsin’s unions and Wisconsin’s Democrats is impressive.

Since Act 10 passed, labor unions have hemorrhaged members. The Wall Street Journal reported that the state’s largest teachers union, the Wisconsin Education Association Council, has lost more than a third of its membership, dropping from about 98,000 to about 60,000 members. Similarly, the American Federation of Teachers has lost 16,000 members and is now less than half of what it was before Act 10.


Now we know exactly what the Left was so scared of: government workers having a choice about whether they are represented by a union. Perhaps more importantly for the union bosses is a loss of union dues in the millions of dollars. Conservative estimates show that with 100,000 members opting out of unions, around $60 million less will be flowing to unions in Wisconsin. In terms of pure political dollars (PAC Contributions), more than $2 million less will be at the Left’s disposal for upcoming election spending and lobbying.

At both AFSCME and the Wisconsin teachers unions things are so bad they’ve been forced to layoff union staffers and needless to say, their donations to Scott Walker’s opponent in November were off significantly from what they’d like to have been able to spend, and union bosses are in a state of depression.

If the US Supreme Court hears and sides with the brave women from California, Wisconsin will be replicated all over the US workers will have the right to decide that unions don’t represent them and Democrats will have lost their major source of what has been forced funding.

And just in time for the 2016 election cycle.

9th Circuit Issues Important Gun-Rights Decision

Leave a comment

This is from AmmoLand.

California-( It took nearly two years but this morning the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision written by ninety year old judge Harry Pregerson which created a framework in the 9th Circuit for deciding Second Amendment cases.

The court of appeals adopted a “Two Step Inquiry” (1) If the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment then (2) courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

This is an important decision because when the US Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) the cases involved bans. The High Court did not describe a framework for the courts to use to evaluate laws that fell short of outright bans as was the case in Heller and McDonald.

Until today, the cases decided in the 9th Circuit did not articulate a framework because they either involved persons the court said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., convicted felons) or “arms” which the court likewise said fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment (e.g., bombs) or persons using firearms to further their criminal enterprise (e.g, drug dealers), etc. In cases such as this, the court decided that it was not necessary to articulate a framework to use in deciding the cases. In other words, these were “Open and Shut” cases.

What This Portends for the Concealed Carry and Open Carry cases?

There are close to a dozen concealed carry cases either pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals or are currently being decided in the lower 9th Circuit District Courts. Unfortunately, the concealed carry cases have several insurmountable mountains to climb. First, the US Supreme Court said that its decision in Heller did not invalidate prohibitions on concealed carry and when the Supreme Court applied the Second Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment in McDonald it also applied the Heller decision to the states. The US Supreme Court in Heller said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution.

So the concealed carry cases are unlikely to even reach, let alone pass, the first step of the “Two Step Inquiry.” For nearly two hundred years state courts have said that concealed carry is not a right. Two recent Supreme Court decisions say concealed carry is not a right as have every Federal Court of Appeals to decide the question. Since there are only two ways to carry a firearm, openly or concealed, that leaves the two Open Carry cases, Nichols V. Brown and Young v. Hawaii to be decided under the “Two Step Inquiry” framework.

“Step 1″ – Does the challenged law burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment?

The US Supreme Court said that Open Carry perfectly captures the meaning of the Second Amendment right to Keep and Bear Arms and both California and Hawaii ban Open Carry. So both Open Carry cases pass “Step 1.”

“Step 2″ – Having passed “Step 1,” courts are directed to apply an appropriate level of scrutiny.

There are three levels of scrutiny; rational basis, intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny. “Rational Basis” basically means the government wins except in rare circumstances such as the law being “irrational” or “arbitrary.” The Supreme Court in Heller took rational basis off the table so that leaves intermediate and strict scrutiny.

Intermediate Scrutiny – Sliding Scale

Intermediate Scrutiny is a sliding scale that courts apply to “regulations” of fundamental rights that fall short of a ban. For example, if you as an individual want to walk up and down the sidewalk wearing a t-shirt with some political or religious message then you are free to do so. If there were a local law requiring a permit for you to do so then it would likely be overturned even under the low end of “intermediate scrutiny.” However, If you and a hundred friends want to walk up and down the same sidewalk then you might have to comply with a law requiring you to get a permit and that law would normally be subject to the sliding scale of “intermediate scrutiny.” The greater the restrictions placed on getting a permit, the greater the burden on the government in justifying the law.

However, once a law passes a certain threshold then “strict scrutiny” applies and the restrictions on your fundamental rights have to be narrowly tailored and the government needs a very good reason to justify that restriction.

Under both intermediate and strict scrutiny the burden of proof is on the government to justify those restrictions.

There is an exception however, when the government bans a protected right, as does California and Hawaii which both ban the bearing arms for the purpose of self-defense, then it is unnecessary for the court to decide what level of scrutiny to apply. Bans on fundamental rights are always unconstitutional regardless of the level of scrutiny.

The case decided today was US v. Chovan (11-50107). Mr. Chovan had been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence which results in a lifetime ban on the possession of firearms under Federal law unless the conviction is expunged, pardoned or otherwise set-aside. In California, once the period of probation has expired, a person has the right to have his misdemeanor conviction expunged. Mr. Chovan did not have his conviction expunged and was therefore charged with possession of a firearm in violation of Federal law.


Charles Nichols is the President of California Right To Carry, a non-profit California association of Second Amendment advocates. Mr. Nichols filed a Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit seeking to overturn California’s 1967 ban on openly carrying loaded firearms in public.

Read more: 


%d bloggers like this: