Democrats have returned once again to their bag of tricks to explain their evident hypocrisy. While attempting to paint Republicans as obstructionists for refusing to hold a vote for any Alinskyite radical President Obama has deemed to nominate, ample evidence shows that Democrats have been equally willing to engage in such supposed “obstruction.”
With little more explanation than “Yeah, but that was different… somehow…” Democrats have tried to distract from their hypocrisy by claiming that Merrick Garland, Obama’s nominee, is a “moderate” that should please both Democrat and Republican lawmakers.
The problem, however, is that he is anything but. Though Garland may be right of Stalin on some issues, his contemptible view on the Second Amendment should merit him a “non-starter” status.
Garland has had the opportunity to support the Second Amendment on four important cases and in all four cases, he has opted to vote against affirming the right that protects all others.
In 2007, on the District of Columbia Circuit, Garland was one of the four judges who voted to rehear the holding of a three-judge panel that overturned Washington D.C.’s unconscionable prohibition on firearm ownership in District of Columbia vs. Heller, the famous Second Amendment case that went all the way to the Supreme Court and which affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right.
Two years prior, the same court ruled differently in a similar case, Seegars v. Gonzales. When given the opportunity to rehear that case, however, Garland voted to not rehear the case – an indication that Garland is less concerned with ensuring proper jurisprudence and more interested in protecting an anti-Second Amendment agenda.
Further, in 2000, Garland voted to allow the FBI to retain background check applications. The Brady Law which mandated federal background checks (ie: permission) for gun ownership has a clear stipulation that such records must be destroyed promptly.
Garland flagrantly sought to violate the statutory authority to suit his own anti-Second Amendment agenda.
For those who missed too many high school government classes, I’ll refresh: the purpose of the judiciary is to interpret existing law- not to make up laws.
Perhaps most egregiously, however, Garland voted in 2012 to allow the prosecution of individuals who possessed a fully-automatic weapon even if the accused did not know that the weapon was fully automatic. A successful prosecution would entail a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in federal prison.
By voting to prosecute a citizen who unknowingly violated the law, Garland voiced opposition to a tenet of our justice system: mens rea or a guilty mind- a premise that is common in criminal law as it indicates that the accused did knowingly violate the law.
No, Merrick Garland is no moderate. He is a tool of the Obama Administration to undo the wonderful progress that has been made in restoring elements of the Second Amendment that never should have been torn from the citizenry in the first place.
We must oppose voting on any nominee offered to us by President Obama. And, above all else, we must reject Merrick Garland and his anti-American agenda.