Gun owners should be glad we don't have Justice Garland

Michael Reynolds/Pool via AP

Boy did we dodge a bullet when it comes to the Supreme Court of the United States. Although we all need to be braced for impact, as the tides can change quickly, the mortality of man is not endless. We can at least celebrate the fact that current Attorney General Merrick Garland is not seated at the High Court.

Granted, the atmosphere is made of up the swampyness of the administration as a whole, and whoever is the driving force behind everything, it’s still safe to say lovers of freedom and civil liberties should be thankful that Obama’s pick did not end up being sworn in. Garland rendering an opinion on a firearms case would be tragic. A threat to democracy! This is the same guy who’s now been charged with offering some added protection to the current members of the court and responded with the speed of a sloth. 

The opinion leak that may affect Roe has created a stir of epic proportions. Most pundits and commentators have been looking at the crazed reaction to the leaked draft and comparing it to how the woke rage mob of the left will handle the potential dismantling of may-issue carry schemes. What the readers of Bearing Arms knows is that these reactions, those directed towards the fate of Roe or potential overturning of restrictions on the bearing of arms in public, only further solidify the importance of the latter of the two’s abolishment. There’s not much more of a better case for allowing lawful self-defense than having to deal with angry violent mobs.

Garland’s got the justices’ back though. So longingly staring at the seat that he just never will fill, but was so close, had to offer up the services of the DOJ to aid in the protection of the last semi-stable and sacrosanct institution in the Union.

Attorney General Merrick B. Garland this afternoon convened a meeting with Justice Department and Supreme Court officials to discuss the security needs of Justices and the Court since the unauthorized release of a draft Court opinion. At the Attorney General’s direction, the U.S. Marshals Service accelerated the provision of around-the-clock security at the homes of all Justices, among other actions, last week.

Attendees also discussed ongoing efforts to enhance coordination, intelligence sharing, and technical support as it relates to judicial security. The Attorney General reiterated the Department’s commitment to take all appropriate actions to further enhance the security of Justices and the Court.

This was on May 18th. How many days have passed since things have started to heat up? So nice of Garland to come down from his pedestal to walk among the justices and give them his assurances. What he had to say is interesting. Pay close attention to what he did not say though, rather than what he said. Read between the lines.

“The rise of violence and unlawful threats of violence directed at those who serve the public is unacceptable and dangerous to our democracy,” said Attorney General Garland. “I want to be clear: while people vote, argue, and debate in a democracy, we must not – we cannot – allow violence or unlawful threats of violence to permeate our national life. The Justice Department will not tolerate violence or threats of violence against judges or any other public servants at work, home, or any other location.” 

Nowhere did Garland address the court directly. Nowhere in his statement did he take a chance to separate these “judges” or “public servants” from the rest of the .gov schmucks that we deal with on a day to day basis. Nope, nowhere. Perhaps theres some atomicity because the Senate and Orange Man stole his glory? Garland is maybe complicit with watching the justices have to deal with something that’s unheard of in recent history. Justices…not judge, nor “public servant.” But we’re all keenly aware Garland, Biden-Harris, and the rest of the marsh covered creatures of the current administration love to sit back and just watch it burn. At least Obama watched it burn with style. 

I don’t expect the DOJ or Garland to speak out against any ironic non-sense that may come from a favorable opinion in NYSRPA v. Bruen, if one is delivered as such. The White House keeps on with the “mostly peaceful” protest rhetoric we’re all too accustomed to hearing, while people are harassing and seeking to intimidate, what was once the only near untarnished institute we have. NYSRPA will make Garland’s head explode, and there’s nothing he can do about it, he just was not fit to sit on that bench. Can we fast forward to a freedom loving supermajority, with a pro civil liberties chief executive, and get on with national reciprocity already?