By Jeff Knox

(May 10, 2017) Maj Toure is an African American man from the mean streets of North Philadelphia.  He describes a climate of gangs and widespread poverty, where only cops and bad guys are armed, and average citizens tend to think exclusively in those terms.  This is a common condition in inner-city neighborhoods, the same neighborhoods where the people are among the most likely to fall victim to violent crime.

Toure thinks this is just wrong, and he’s determined to change things.  Awareness that the right to arms is not something reserved to old white guys with NRA baseball caps has been growing in minority communities like Maj’s in recent years.  But awareness of the laws and responsibilities surrounding that right, have been slower in coming. Maj has known several people from his neighborhood who decided that exercising their right to arms was a valid and prudent thing to do, but then ended up in legal trouble because, while Pennsylvania is an open carry state, Philadelphia requires citizens to get a city permit before they can exercise that right.  As in so many other places, violations of gun laws in Philadelphia are dealt with harshly, sometimes even more harshly than actual crimes. Consequently many people with no criminal intent being convicted of felonious weapons violations, simply for exercising their rights.

The rights community rallied around Shaneen Allen, an African American mom, when she unwittingly drove into New Jersey with her licensed, concealed carry firearm, and we managed to get her pardoned by Governor Chris Christie, as well as getting some enforcement policies in the state changed.  But when young black men in Philadelphia are caught up in draconian laws, there is rarely any interest from rights groups wanting to help build a legal defense. At the same time there are few programs to teach residents of inner-city communities how to use guns safely and to navigate the legal maze surrounding guns in their cities.  Moreover, even if there were more instructional programs being offered by groups like the NRA, it would be difficult to convince the locals to participate because mistrust of organizations dominated by older whites is common within minority communities.

That’s where Maj and “Black Guns Matter” come in.   Maj sought out education about firearms laws and regulations, as well as safety training, and practical and legal issues surrounding carry and self-defense, then he began teaching what he learned to his neighbors.  As a member of the community, Maj’s advice and training were welcomed and embraced, and he quickly began making a difference. Seeing his success, other similar communities began calling on him to bring his training into their neighborhoods.

Maj is not the only African American training inner-city residents in the safe and lawful use of guns, but his activities have captured a lot of attention, and have been widely applauded by gun rights groups.  Unfortunately applause doesn’t pay the bills, so Maj, like others pursuing similar courses, has so far depended on support from social media campaigns and small donations to keep the information flowing. Up to this point, that has been a bit of an advantage.  Not being affiliated with a large group like the NRA or the firearms industry has given Maj autonomy, and protected him from accusations of being a shill for those groups. But now that Black Guns Matter has reached some prominence and earned a reputation of working exclusively for the communities it serves, it’s time for the gun rights establishment to step up and offer some financial support.

One of the challenges with this is that the support has to be free of strings and obligations.  Maj Toure and Black Guns Matter must continue to be independent operators, spreading their message of rights and responsibilities without concern for the political goals of outside organizations.  Anything else would dilute the message and marginalize the messenger.

Outside of the gun issue, Maj Toure probably holds political views that are far different than those of the mainstream gun culture, and it’s a certainty that his audiences do.  His, and his audience’s perceptions of hot-button topics like racism and police brutality are informed from a very different perspective than the views of the middle-aged, white men who make up the majority of gun groups.  None of that is likely to change any time soon, but those differences shouldn’t play a role in financing the education efforts.

What matters is not our differences, but our similarities.  We in the rights community claim that support for the Second Amendment is our number one priority, so let’s prove that by making sure the Second Amendment is fully available to everyone – even those with whom we might share little else.

It used to be common for newspapers to print at the top of their editorial pages, a quote (commonly attributed to Voltaire, but actually penned by one of his biographers):  “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death for your right to say it.”  While the quote might not have been Voltaire’s, the sentiment was, and it was a sentiment shared by our founding fathers. We must apply a similar sentiment to the Second Amendment. While we might not agree on many things, we must stand shoulder to shoulder in defense of each others’ rights.

To support Black Guns Matter directly, you can go to www.GoFundMe.com/BlackGunsMatter or their website; www.OfficialBlackGunsMatter.org.  To help fund them indirectly, share this article within the firearms community, especially industry executives, and leaders of groups that you already donate to.  A grant of a few thousand dollars could make a huge impact on this important work.

By Jeff Knox

At the NRA’s Annual Meeting of Members in Atlanta last weekend, NRA leaders doubled-down on their strategy of treating the membership like children or mushrooms.  As a concerned and involved NRA Endowment member, I submitted a resolution that was critical of NRA leadership for their handling of the recent bylaw election. The main focus of the resolution was that the NRA leadership displayed a serious lack of respect for the membership by not giving members an opportunity to hear dissenting opinions and debate the amendments on their merits prior to voting on them.

My objective was to foster debate about this issue and allow the membership to act as the owners of their Association.  But rather than allow that discussion, the leadership silenced dissent by claiming that there were “technical flaws” in the resolution, and declaring it “out of order.”

The “technical flaws” were bogus, based on a distorted reading of Robert’s Rules of Order, and an intentional mischaracterization of a clause of the resolution.  Even if they they were valid, the proper course under Robert’s Rules should have been either to bring the issues to my attention as the maker of the motion, and give me an opportunity to correct them, exactly as they did with another, less controversial resolution I submitted, or allow the resolution onto the floor where any flaws could be amended using the normal deliberative process.  Instead, they simply declared the whole resolution out of order and went on to the next item of business.

The only resolution actually voted on by the members, was one I submitted calling for commemoration of 2017 as the 40th anniversary of the Cincinnati Revolt.  It called for members to express their desire that the association recognize and celebrate this important milestone in the Association’s history by publishing feature articles and other media presentations commemorating the event as a way to educate younger NRA members about our history.

Even with this relatively uncontroversial resolution, President Cors moved quickly, going straight to the vote without offering opportunity for debate or discussion.  Under Robert’s Rules, the maker of a motion or resolution always has the right to speak about it before a vote is taken, and technically, should read the resolution to the body, but that’s not the way it happened.  It could be argued that President Cors is not a parliamentarian, and simply made a few mistakes in his conduct of the meeting, but it seemed that the mistakes always tended to the benefit of the establishment, and the detriment of the members.  But ignorance is a lame excuse since a professional parliamentarian sits at the President’s elbow during the meeting.

Some other members offered a pair of resolutions, and in both cases, a member of the Board of Directors immediately rose to move that the resolution be referred to a committee of the Board, rather than allowing the members to vote on it.  In the first instance, that motion to refer passed without discussion, and in the other, the member who submitted the resolution requested permission to withdraw it.

As soon as that resolution had been dealt with, the same member of the Board who had risen on the other issues rose again, this time to move that the meeting be adjourned.  President noted that he had been informed that a member of the Executive Council, former President David Keene, had expressed a desire to raise a point of personal privilege, and asked that the motion to adjourn be held briefly to allow Mr. Keene to raise his point of privilege.  There was no objection, and Mr. Keene was given the floor.

Former President Keene expressed his feeling that he had been personally insulted – along with the rest of the Board – by the suggestion that NRA leadership does not respect the members.  He pointed out that he and the current leadership of the organization frequently remark on the fact that the power of the association is derived from the membership, and give credit to the membership for the achievements the association makes in the political and legislative arenas.  He concluded by declaring that they all have the deepest respect for the members, and reiterating that it was insulting to suggest otherwise.

While I could have tried to respond with a personal privilege point of my own, I was quite sure that the attempt would be met with a ruling that I was out of order, and the attempt would have served no purpose.  Instead, I approached Mr. Keene directly and apologized for causing offense, assuring him that it was not my intent, but I pointed out that declaring respect, and demonstrating respect are two very different things.  Regardless of how thoroughly the bylaw amendments might have been discussed and debated within the Board, not giving the members the courtesy of full disclosure of the facts, and not allowing any expressions of dissent from the leadership position, is not a demonstration of respect.  Further, filling the magazine with repeated arguments supporting and encouraging a “Yes” vote, without providing any opportunity for any other opinion to be expressed, also failed to demonstrate respect for the members. I got the distinct impression that he was not convinced.

The National Rifle Association is a wonderful organization with incredible power, and even greater potential.  I believe that every gun owner and lover of liberty should be a member. Having dedicated the better part of my life to working for a strong, effective, member-driven NRA, I’m deeply disappointed that the leadership – both past and current – insists on “unity” and “conformity” over full disclosure and debate.  Rather than providing the membership with the information they need to make an informed decision, and trusting them to come to the best decision, they treat them like mushrooms – kept in the dark and buried in BS – giving them only the information they choose, and holding their hands as they guide them across the street.  That’s not respect.

By Jeff Knox

(April 24, 2017) The results are in on the recent board of directors election for the NRA, and two of the three candidates The Firearms Coalition endorsed won seats, but the game’s not over yet.  There’s still an opportunity for our third endorsed candidate, Adam Kraut, to be elected to the board. While most directors are elected by mail-in ballot to 3-year terms, every year, one director is elected to a 1-year term by the members present at NRA’s Annual Meeting.  Only candidates who ran in the mail-in election are eligible to run for this “76th Director” seat, so Adam still has a chance to serve on the board, and if you’re going to be in Atlanta this weekend, you could help make that happen.

The NRA will not release the official results of the election until the Annual Meeting in Atlanta, but they have notified the candidates as to whether they were elected.  Of the three candidates we endorsed, Sean Maloney and Graham Hill were both elected, but Adam Kraut fell short. We won’t know how close he came until we see the official report at the meeting.

If you are planning to attend the NRA Annual Meeting, be sure to take a few moments to cast a ballot for Adam before you get too wrapped up in all of the other hoopla.  Unlike the mail-in ballot, in which only Life Members and Annual Members with at least 5 consecutive years of membership are eligible to vote, anyone who has been an NRA member for at least 50 days gets to vote at the Annual Meeting.  So if you have been a member since at least March 9th of this year, you are eligible to vote.

Other candidates will also be running for this seat.  Actually, all of the candidates who ran and failed to win a seat, will be listed on the ballot, but I only know of two others who are actively campaigning for it: Stephanie Spika, and John Cushman.  If any of the others are seriously trying for it, they haven’t let me know.

With over 20 years on the NRA board, Cushman has been named as the “Officially Endorsed” candidate of the current leadership team.  Cushman is from New York, wears cowboy boots and bolo ties, and is not what you would call “in tune” with the younger generation. He has pictures of the NRA officers on his campaign flier, and NRA staffers, some current directors, and local volunteers will be tasked with handing out his literature and encouraging everyone to vote for him.  While it seems inappropriate for the board to “endorse” one of the candidates, or for paid NRA staff to be managing a director campaign, that’s the normal drill each year. And in reality, “the board” didn’t endorse him. The leadership simply declared that he would be their chosen one for this election, and that was that.

Stephanie Spika is about as far opposite to John Cushman as two people could be.  She is young, attractive, and a former employee of NRA-ILA. She currently works for Safari Club International as a social media specialist.  I know little about her beyond that, but I do know that the powers that be at NRA really don’t want her on the board. That would normally incline me toward supporting her, but not when there is another candidate that I feel is a better choice.

In this case, that candidate is Adam Kraut, an attorney, gun store manager, and YouTube personality, who I think would be a great asset on the Board of Directors.

If you or anyone you know is planning to attend the Annual Meeting in Atlanta, I encourage you to be sure to vote for Adam Kraut, and to urge your friends to do the same.  If you live within a few hours’ drive of Atlanta, it’s definitely worth making the trip. Outside of the annual SHOT Show in Las Vegas, this is probably the largest firearms trade show in the country, with acres of cool stuff to look at.  There is also the matter of the actual Annual Meeting of Members, which will convene at 10:00 on Saturday morning, and the small matter of an appearance by some guy named Trump at some point.

It is my assumption that the proposed amendments to the NRA bylaws passed, but the NRA will not release that information until the meeting.  If I am correct in my assumption, it is a sad day for NRA members, as it means you lose your right to force a recall of directors and officers by petition, lose your right to propose bylaw amendments by petition, and you lose your right to vote on bylaw amendments during an Annual Meeting.  It will also be much harder for members to be nominated by petition to run for the NRA Board of Directors.

As the major thrust of these bylaw amendments made changes to bylaws that were written or introduced by my father, it’s hard not to take the heavy-handed railroading of these amendments through as a personal affront.  If the amendments were such a good idea, why was there no public discussion of them in advance of the balloting, and why were no other views sought or published in the ballot materials? I’d really like to ask those questions of our board of directors, and see what they have to say.

If you can make it, don’t miss it, and be sure to vote for Adam Kraut.

By Jeff Knox

(March 28, 2017) Eight years ago, shortly after Barack Obama was elected, a group of citizens protesting his policies gathered outside a Phoenix venue where the new president was giving a speech.  Several of the protesters were openly carrying sidearms, and one had an AR-15 slung over his shoulder. The armed protesters raised eyebrows and attracted national news media attention. MSNBC in particular hinted that the armed protesters were racially motivated showing closeups of the rifle-toter’s back, with the “evil black rifle” silhouetted against his white dress shirt.  The photos they showed were cropped in such a way that only the rifle and the shirt were visible, though the uncropped photos clearly showed the back of the African-American man’s head, the side of his face, and his hands. MSNBC later offered up a “clarification,” to correct their “mistake,” but the narrative that violent racists were carrying guns as a threat against America’s first black president persisted.

Fast-forward 8 years, and the scene in Phoenix was more threatening, and received much less coverage.  A couple of hundred supporters of President Donald Trump showed up for a Make America Great Again march from a nearby park to the Arizona State Capitol.  In response a couple of dozen counter-protesters showed up with rifles and shotguns strapped to the plate carriers on their chests, and red bandannas tied around their necks.  Many also had scarves covering their faces. The protesters marched in a 2×2, paramilitary formation past the capital in a grim show of resistance and intolerance.

A reporter from the very liberal alternative weekly New Times, fell in with the anti-Trump marchers, videoing them and trying to ask questions about their objectives.  Rather than explaining their positions or stating their goals, the marchers responded with physical intimidation and not-too-veiled threats.

The incident generated little coverage outside of the reporter’s Facebook Live, which has gone viral among pro-gun social media.  The lack of attention is not just because Americans have been desensitized to seeing armed protesters at various open carry events around the country.  It’s also because the media prefers to focus on radical right-wing extremists and militia members. People wearing body armor and openly carrying rifles and handguns have become routine for Black Lives Matter protests and anti-Trump events, but we rarely see them on the evening news.  Instead we see the “extremists” among Trump supporters, yelling obscenities and falling for the bait being offered by the anti-Trump crowd. While journalists still like to make an issue about armed protesters, they much prefer to limit their coverage of such things to the right-wing.

The groups on display at the recent Phoenix Trump rally were an interesting mix of communists, anarchists, Chicano nationalists, and confused libertarian populists.  The counter-protest was apparently organized by the local chapter of a group called Redneck Revolt, which paints itself as a populist movement of poor whites who blame all of the world’s problems on rich white men and the capitalist system.  The local group calls itself the Phoenix John Brown Gun Club, in honor of the infamous, radical abolitionist. They were joined by members of Antifascist Action Phoenix, and members of the Brown Berets, a Chicano nationalist group. All of the groups have similar rhetoric decrying fascism, capitalism, and rich, white people, and advocating for the poor and working class of all races, religions, ethnicities, and sexual denominations.  None of them seem to have any suggestions for better systems, just rejection and destruction of the current ones. All espouse revolutionary philosophies that sound very much like communism, but few will come right out and admit to being communist.

There are many unanswered questions regarding where these groups get their funding.  The Brown Berets, as part of the Chicano/Aztlan/Reconquista movement, have long had ties to communist groups and funding, but the newer “anarchist” groups that have popped up primarily since last November’s election, don’t have the historical connections, but seem to have no trouble coming up with thousands of dollars to provide signs, buses, and travel expenses to get their troops on the ground in various places around the country.

Most of the core activists in these Antifa groups are the same black-masked vandals we’ve seen turning peaceful demonstrations violent in big cities around the country for years.  Many were also involved in the Occupy protests. Now they are energized by a common enemy – Donald Trump – and anyone who supports him or anything he does. They are actively recruiting disgruntled young millennials at a startling rate.  Their core message sounds good, if you don’t think too hard about it, and their philosophy embraces the idea of violent rebellion in a way that has not been seen in this country since the days of the Weather Underground with Bernadine Dohrn and Bill Ayers.  Then, as now, the agenda was the destruction of the American capitalist structure. The only difference in the propaganda of today from that of the Weather Underground in the ’60s, is that Dohrn and Ayers openly advocated a classless, communist society as the ultimate goal.  Today’s radicals just refer to the goal as a classless society, minus the reference to communism.

As Bob Dylan said in the song that gave the Weather Underground its name, “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.”  Better batten down the hatches.

By Jeff Knox

(March 15, 2017) The state of Maryland has prosecuted, convicted, fined, and sanctioned a pair of political activists for producing and delivering an automated phone message thanking a candidate for taking a particular position on a controversial issue.  Everything said in the message was true and accurate, but the ad hoc organization the two men created to carry their message was ruled to be invalid, so the disclaimer at the end of the message declaring the group responsible for the message, was ruled to be inadequate to meet Maryland’s campaign laws.  The men, Dennis Fusaro and Stephen Waters, were sentenced to 30 days in jail, 3 years of probation, and fines of about $1000 each, but they are appealing the conviction based on rights to free speech under the First Amendment and a corollary recognized by Maryland’s constitution. The cost and inconvenience of the appeal will far exceed the sentence, but Fusaro and Waters say that their prosecution and convictions raise serious constitutional questions and should not be allowed to stand.

The right to free speech is sacrosanct to Americans, except, it seems, political speech of a flavor disagreeable to the bureaucrats in charge.  Back in the early days of the Republic our founding fathers valued political speech above all else – even above religious speech – and they routinely exercised that right anonymously.  But today in America, campaign contributions, political advertisements, and producing electioneering materials are tightly regulated, and unlike voting, they require identification. Of course anonymous political speech hasn’t gone away completely.  We still have some semblance of anonymity on the internet, even though though true anonymity online is very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve. The rich and powerful can still hide behind front-groups and layers of PACs and bundlers to conceal their involvement, but for Joe Average American, anonymous political speech is difficult and can be, as Fusaro and Waters found out, a criminal offense.

The gatekeepers of free speech in Maryland disapproved of what Fusaro and Waters chose to say during a County Council race in 2014.  The duo did not advocate for or against any candidate, but they wanted to highlight one of the candidates’ position on certain issues, and they wanted to do it anonymously.  The method of political speech they chose was an automated phone message, so-called Robocalls, and the way they cloaked their involvement was by forming an ad hoc association to take credit for the calls.  They wrote a script, pooled their money, and paid for the calls to be recorded and delivered to a select group of people in the county. To meet identification requirements and disavow any connection to any other candidate, committee, or party, they included an obligatory statement at the end declaring that the ad was paid for and authorized by their ad hoc organization.

If Mike Bloomberg wants to impact a local political race, as he frequently does, he doesn’t buy a billboard or send out postcards with the message “I’m Mike Bloomberg and I paid for this political hit-piece.”  Instead, one of his minions finds a few local people – or just moves to town and declares herself a local – and creates a front-group with a name like “Nevadans for Gun Safety.” Then Bloomberg gives money to Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America or Everytown for Gun Safety – or one of their subsidiary or related organizations – which passes the money on to the astroturf “local group” to buy ads saying what Bloomberg wants said.  That is considered perfectly acceptable by the political speech police in Maryland and elsewhere.

What Fusaro and Waters did was no different.  They formed an organization – which legally requires nothing more than agreeing to form it – contributed some money to that organization, and as principals in the organization, arranged to have their message delivered to local residents.  The judge in the case noted that the two took pains to meet the requirements of Maryland election law, but he painted those efforts as attempts to skirt the intent of those laws because they did not identify themselves directly. The penalty he meted out to the two activists was even harsher than the prosecution had requested, because he said a message needed to be sent to future scofflaws who might want to express a political belief without clearly identifying themselves.

Legal observers say the case is unusual in several respects, and that it appears that Maryland is intentionally using the case to establish some legal precedents to make it easier to control political speech in the future.  There is no shortage of case-law already on the books regarding free speech issues, but those precedents can be confusing and in some cases are contradictory.

Fusaro and Waters’ case has attracted some attention and assistance from a few civil rights groups, but none of the heavy hitters like the ACLU have waded into the case, probably due to the fact that Waters and Fusaro tend to advocate for “conservative” and libertarian positions that are not looked upon favorably by “liberal,” legal assistance groups.

The message itself, and Fusaro and Waters’ objectives in delivering it, should have no bearing on the legal case.  There is no argument that the message was true and accurate. The only real bone of contention is attribution of the call to an informal organization that couldn’t be easily tracked down and its members identified.

Appealing this case is going to cost thousands of dollars, and your help is needed to fund the case.  Losing the appeal – or not appealing at all – leaves a very dangerous precedent on the books, cutting deeper into your right to express yourself on political matters.

If you’d like to assist in this case, you can make a tax-deductible donation through www.RightsWatch.org.  Every little bit matters – whether it’s a little bit of money to help with this case, or a little more encroachment on rights by politicians looking to protect their seats.  Please donate if you can.

By Jeff Knox

(February 16, 2017) The nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court has triggered the expected ranting and railing from Senate Democrats, and the left in general.  In response, many conservatives are calling for Senate Republicans to give Democrats a taste of their own medicine by pulling the trigger on the so-called “Nuclear Option” – majority vote to change Senate rules, revoking the right to filibuster Supreme Court nominees.

That would be a strategic mistake.

Senate Democrats invoked the “Nuclear Option” a couple of years ago when Republicans were actively using the filibuster rules to block Obama’s judge appointments, but they stopped short of making the new rule apply to Supreme Court nominees.  Had they held the majority in Obama’s last year, there can be little doubt that they would have extended the filibuster ban to SCOTUS picks in order to overcome Republican objections, but Republicans should not resort to the same tactics.

Not only would invoking the “Nuclear Option” set a precedent that would surely come back to haunt them in the future – just ask Democrats how they like not being able to effectively block Trump’s lower court judicial appointments – but it would also jeopardize the filibuster in general, removing one of the few tools the minority has for forcing compromise.  Which again is fine when your party is in the majority, but not so good when you find yourself in the minority.

There are ways for Republicans to win confirmation of Judge Gorsuch without resorting to the “Nuclear Option.”  Some of the experts at the Heritage Foundation wrote a paper on the subject before Gorsuch was even nominated. Their suggestion of using what is called Rule XIX to limit debate, thus limiting the duration of a filibuster, is pretty straightforward, but even that is not likely to be necessary.

The purpose of the filibuster is not to block an action in the Senate, but rather to delay action to give time to whip votes and bring pressure to bear.  In the current situation, the delay and attention works to the advantage of Republicans, not Democrats. Gorsuch is clearly qualified and widely respected, and he has a reputation for standing up to executive and bureaucratic overreach.  He is actually more likely to rule against Trump if he tries to accomplish too much with a pen and a phone.

By delaying, Democrats give more opportunity for the public to realize that they are simply being petulant.  Public pressure will weigh on Democrat senators who will be facing reelection next year – particularly those from states that supported Trump, some by a wide margin – convincing them to cross the aisle and support Gorsuch’s confirmation.

Democrat leaders are making a big mistake going all out to block Gorsuch’s confirmation.  There might already be enough votes to overcome a filibuster, and if not, those votes will come soon enough.  Republicans just need to move forward with confirmation hearings and a vote. If they really feel they don’t have enough votes to overcome a filibuster, they can invoke Rule XIX and let the Democrats talk themselves out.  But just moving forward will probably be enough.

Naturally, Democrats are pointing to Republicans’ refusal to hold hearings on the nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy left after the sudden death of Justice Antonin Scalia, and they have a point, but only to a point.  Republicans foolishly rushed to declare that they would reject any candidate Obama chose after Scalia’s death, just as Democrats were foolish to reject Trump’s appointment sight unseen. But unlike Republicans, who treated Garland respectfully, even while they refused to hold hearings on his confirmation, Democrats have launched scurrilous and baseless attacks on Gorsuch.  These tactics are not painting Democrats in a favorable light.

Court watchers know that Gorsuch’s appointment does little to shift the balance of the Court the way Merrick Garland’s would have.  In fact, while Gorsuch is considered a judicial conservative, in some areas, like 4th amendment, he can be expected to side more with the “liberal” wing of the Court.  Blocking a confirmation vote, and saying nasty, patently untrue things about the nominee, just makes the Democrats look petty and vindictive.  That won’t play well with the public at large, and is peel off enough Democrat senators to break from their leadership and vote to bring the nomination to the floor.

Minority Leader Schumer has to oppose Gorsuch’s confirmation, because he is accountable to the radical Democrat base.  Individual senators – especially those from “conservative”-leaning states – have no such mandate. Their first obligation is to their home-state voters, and for many senators, those voters are tired of petty, partisan politics.

If Republicans push forward with confirmation hearings for Gorsuch, they will force the Democrats’ hand, and should win a surprisingly easy victory.  All of the Democrats can vote against Gorsuch in the final vote if they want to, because all it takes for Republicans to prevail is a simple majority.  Getting to that vote is the challenge, as it requires 60 votes for “cloture,” that is, to shut down a filibuster. Democrat senators can vote to end the filibuster, then vote against Gorsuch’s confirmation.  That would allow them to pick which vote to focus on, depending on the audience they’re addressing. That is a very easy out for politicians facing a potentially tough reelection campaign.

Republicans can win this fight without deploying the “Nuclear Option.”  Using that option would be the height of hypocrisy, and would diminish Republican support.  They need to stick to the high ground, push forward with confirmation hearings, and bring public pressure to bear against the Democrats’ weaker links.