How Trump’s New Supreme Court Pick Feels About Guns


Neil Gorsuch was just nominated by Donald Trump to replace Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court. Exactly where he stands on the Second Amendment isn’t totally clear due to a lack of rulings, but here is the best information we have to go with so far:

From the NRA:



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.


So far, so good, at the very least he agrees that the Second Amendment is an individual right. Already, he is a thousand times better than any of the four liberal justices on the court! Ohh, and he loves to hunt and fish too. However it’s really not totally clear where he will stand on some of the other issues the court might face, such as concealed carry reciprocity. He is at least adequate, but is he great?

From Inverse:


Unfortunately, for those who might be wondering, there doesn’t seem to be much indication that Gorsuch feels any which way about the Second Amendment. He hasn’t ever ruled on this issue. In public statements and in his writing, he has not mentioned where he stands. For some, this may constitute a cause for concern, but the lack of information on Gorsuch’s stance likely comes more from the dearth of court cases relating to this issue than it does from any reluctance on his part to present his opinion.

There have been few notable court cases involving the Second Amendment, lately — because there have been so few gun control measures actually passed, leaving little to challenge in the courts. Still, there is enough related information to say that Gorsuch will at the very least be friendly, if not totally helpful, to the interests of gun advocates and owners.


Rest assured this guy is better than anything Hillary Clinton would give gun owners. He interprets the second amendment as an individual right to bear arms, Hillary doesn’t. Neil Gorsuch might not have the voting record to accurately assess where he stands in greater detail, at 49 years of age, we might literally have several decades to figure that out.




  1. United States v. Games-Perez – Gorsuch Wrote That an Individual’s Right to Bear Arms Can Not Be ‘Infringed Lightly’.

    Lightly?? It cannot be infringed, period. This guy is not a strict Constitutionalist.

      • Exactly. That is a bad word that you can drive a truck through.
        I strongly suspect that most of those supporting him are “hopeful” and “wishful” For sure, he needs to be NAILED DOWN on his beliefs. History has shown too many SCOTUS who played the American people. And too many, including the FOUR liberals now on the court who should be removed WITH PREJUDICE for their refusal to support and uphold the Constitution AS WRITTEN.

        • He should know the 2 admendment is why this country hasnt been invaded or shit like is happening in foreign countries with no rights to guns their still their in mass for the killers non for defending !! By the people you wouldnt invade a country with a gun behind any blade of grass and millions of veterans and hundred of thousands that have actually fought them in their country !!
          As a former veteran and 21 years service I still have my skills and a sharpe eye yet and love my country still and will stand behind her for every citizen and americian and your right to life and freedom !!!

    • How about Lightly means >Bank Robbers> Murderers>Terrorists>People in Prison> Ect Ect Would be my guess Rev Sam

  2. Sheepdog you are right. There are no qualifiers on freedom and lightly sounds like, “Except when I feel like it.”


    • “Hope” is that none of the new government officials are cons but are U.S. Patriotic Citizens that will repair all the criminal destruction did against the U.S.A. in his 8 years of abused power E.O.’s &dereliction o duty to his oath !

  3. The 2nd/A does NOT equivocate, compromise, or present any ambiguous extension for interpretation or debate. In other words, it does not say. “…Shall not be infringed…oh, unless you are unable to manage your own finances, smoked pot once in your life, were a convicted criminal but now released back into society as a rehabilitated law abiding citizen again, a homeless PTSD’d combat Vet, or have mental or domestic violence issues, or because the Totalitarian government decides you are a domestic terrorist and can’t fly anywhere? These are all a different situation in an entirely unrelated context, with no bearing on your Natural Rights. And these additional gun banning justification criteria are nothing more than an insidious anti-2nd/A device deployed by a regime hell bent on disarming the entire population sooner or later by making them criminals with illegal agenda based laws.

  4. Mahatma – without a doubt ! – and we now have to look beyond the Second Amendment and keep on the pressure to dismantle the systematic oppression which took decades to grow unnoticed by many but present painfully in our minutely lives. Our children became a property of State ,the laws pile up everywhere to make you a criminal the moment you refuse to continue being a Mickey Mouse , cops ,lawyers ,politicians , celebrities , social workers in monolithic block of First Slaves , non existing minorities of Chosen People , “who is your health providers?” paid good doers and the good doers in waiting , ego maniacs wearing big hearts on their Made in China tax payers paid for suits of armor . And also plain stupids due to their eternal depravation of Freedom . And so on . Getting angry ? Please no ,you don’t get the car to move by kicking the tires to pieces . Let’s do it ,brothers !!!

  5. The second amendment and all the other nine are meant to block the government from putting us in chains. The entire Constitution are chains to be placed on the government. Remember that at first all our representatives were unpaid and not career politicians. That’s what our founding fathers envisioned. We now have a man who is not of that ilk in the Whitehouse. We must stand behind him and yes get as vocal and more so than the liberals and socialists if we truly want to make America great again!!

  6. We wouldn’t have to worry about Judicial interpretations if we just got our employees (reps) to repeal and nullify ALL gun control laws, past and present.

  7. Infringed means what is says >>This is written in stone. Maybe we should FIRST find out what Judge Gorsuch means by the term Lightly??? RED FLAGS ARE STARTING TO POP UP??? REMEMBER THE PHRASE YOU CAN KEEP YOUR DOCTOR<<<< REMEMBER HOW THAT TURNED OUT. Just my opinion.


  8. why doesn’t President trump just ask him straight out? Sounds like the easiest way to me.

  9. Eliminate the ATF and repeal the NFA and all of it poisonous spawn like the 1968 GCA, etc. The Constitution means what it says, not what some bureaucrat says it means. I wonder what wold happen, if every time Congress tried to pass more gun control, they got 5 million or more citizens peacefully massed but obviously angry, in front of the Capitol? We can peacefully assemble according to the Constitution. We could show the snowflakes and illegals how RESPONSIBLE citizens can behave while exercising our rights without encouraging sedition as they are doing. If we policed ourselves and shut down any rowdies before they could riot and mess up our message then Congress just might listen.
    In that scenario, even SCOTUS would have to pay attention to the will of the people, liberals and conservatives alike.

  10. He sounds to me like what ever suits him at the moment. I am just a little leary of his exclamation of lightly. If Trump makes a mistake with this person we will have to live with his judgements for a long time.

  11. Specifically, he wrote in an opinion that “the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own firearms and may not be infringed lightly.” The “lightly” is what give a bit of concern, how do you lightly infringe on the 2nd amendment. Is he saying that if you are going to infringe on it bring the biggest, baddest hammer you can find or stay home. Any infringement no matter how strong it is attempted is against the Constitution pure and simple and should be resisted with every fiber of the nations body.

  12. If one looks back to the original creation of the constitution, the anti-federalists were gravely concerned that the checks and balances were not strong enough to prevent the government from developing too much power and despotism arising with enslavement of the people. This amounted to loss of the ideal that was won through hardship in the revolution. Madison and Hamilton initially apposed a Bill of Rights, naively stating everything would be fine, but over time, Madison realized correctly it was necessary. We now live in a situation where the Bill of Rights is continuously trampled on and the Supreme Court, frequently allows it, sometimes passively and other times with active rulings. I,e. the founding fathers and the entire ideology of the revolution is GONE! The moral corruption of the country tolerates this and there is little chance of overwhelming change. This actually began with John Adams with the Alien and Sedition Act.

    • “The sword and EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE SOLDIER is the birthright of an American.” (Something to that effect could be found in the federalist papers) 2A is to deter the formation of an oppressive or totalitarian or tyrannical government and put it down if necessary as well as other reasons including national defense and personal safety. “When the government stands in awe of the people, liberty prevails. When the people fear the government, tyranny has found victory.”I think that is from Jefferson) With the abundance of government laws and bureaucratic regulations that carry the color of law that we might not even heard of, that are sometimes in conflict with one another, should we be afraid of breaking the law without knowing it? Should we fear our government? Should we be concerned?

  13. While it “appears” that Gorsuch would support the 2nd Amendment, his “lightly” adverb is somewhat troubling. I would have preferred stronger wording there.
    And while we are here in the discussion, while I MUCH prefer the good judge to ANYTHING that would likely have been nominated by Hillary, we have to be cautious here. The liberal Democrat choice for SCOTUS would, of course, be far from what we as 2nd Amendment supporters would support or accept. That doesn’t mean that we should blindly accept ANYONE just because of them NOT being Hillary’s choice. We should ALWAYS study, dissect, inspect, vet, and thoroughly interrogate ANYONE nominated for the Court. So much depends on it. We can NEVER take for granted ANY nominee, simply because this or that individual did, or did not, support them. NEVER HILLARY is NOT enough.

  14. If he cannot honestly agree with the second amendment 100%, we don’t want the bastard .PERIOD!!!! He does not sound trust worthy to me and will change the constitution to what ever he decides is best! Get rid of the phont, and term limits for judges!!!

  15. who is the supreme court and y do they have the right to interpret the constitution, they all take an oat to uphold the constitution, not to interpret the constitution. We the people have a duty to control any form of government and remove individuals who do not up hold the constitution of the us, even the supreme court. Where are the people to control this, do we have to unite or revolt to get things done, it may be necessary if the elected don’t conform.

  16. Any judge nominated to the Supreme Court knows excacly what the laws say. It’s they just don’t like it. If the United States Constitution has not been interpreted by now, it never will be. It says what it says. And if a Judge rules on what he likes instead on what it actually says, this Judge should be removed from the Court.

Comments are closed.