Bloomberg Vows To Pick Anti-Gun Judges

Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg was a Republican. That’s a fact that many people can easily forget considering that he’s waged his own personal jihad against the Second Amendment for years now. Today, he’s running for president as a Democrat, a fact that’s also not overly surprising because of the aforementioned jihad.

Recently, he penned an op-ed at the Chicago Tribune to outline some of his thoughts about what the NRA and the current Supreme Court cast involving New York City.

Perhaps in one of the least shocking revelations, he argued he’d appoint anti-gun judges as president.

As president, I will appoint judges who understand that the Second Amendment allows for common sense limits on gun ownership. I’ve spent 15 years working to build a national coalition that is capable of taking on the NRA and winning — and I’m glad to say that we now have the NRA on the ropes. That may be one reason why the NRA is hoping the court will save it.

Now, bear in mind that absolute no judge he can name believes in a completely unfettered right to keep and bear arms. Such judges simply can’t be confirmed by even this Senate, much less any other version. Every single judge at the federal level believes in some degree of restriction on gun rights.

This is consistent with the Heller decision that found the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, but argued there was still room for limitations.

What Bloomberg is upset about here isn’t that judges may not think there are limits. What he’s upset about is that they think there are far fewer limits than what he wants to see.

Remember, this is a guy who supposedly thinks full-auto and semi-auto are the same damn thing. He wants the most popular firearm model in the nation so heavily restricted it might not as well exist. He wants your right to keep and bear arms to be viewed through the lens of hunting, not self-defense or defense against tyranny.

The problem is where those limits are, not whether they exist.

Bloomberg isn’t interested in appointing judges that simply think limits exist. He wants judges that thing limits are all that should matter. They would support limits to the point that our rights would essentially go from a second-class right to a privilege within a generation and we all know it.

The truth is, Bloomberg’s claim isn’t exactly a revelation. We all know what kind of judges he’d appoint. That’s part of why gun rights advocates oppose him so vehemently.

If there’s an upside, though, it’s the fact that Mikey isn’t likely to get the chance. He’s polling at a whole 4 percent, which is just above the margin of error, and is trailing behind Pete Buttigieg, a mayor of a much smaller community than New York City. Democratic voters don’t really trust him because of the”stop and frisk” policy his police department implemented under his watch, so he’s unlikely to garner much support. Plus, there’s the fact that gun control isn’t a winning issue in the primaries.

So we get big talk from Bloomberg, but he’ll never get a chance to back it up.

Hat tip: Breitbart