>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
But if that wasn’t enough, another federal judge went even further. Judge James Robart, appointed under President George W. Bush, was sentencing repeat offender Kenan Dejuan Brown for illegal gun possession in Seattle. When Brown explained he carried a firearm because it made him feel safe, Robart couldn’t resist injecting his personal beliefs into the courtroom.
“In my experience, a gun is an invitation to get into trouble,” Robart declared.
His remarks weren’t just a passing comment. The Department of Justice actually included them in its official press release on the sentencing – spreading his personal anti-gun view as if it were official doctrine.
Rights Groups Push Back
Second Amendment organizations wasted no time responding. Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, blasted Robart for insulting law-abiding gun owners.
“We take no issue at all with Judge Robart’s dispatch of a recidivist criminal to prison,” Gottlieb said, “but his opinion about gun ownership amounts to a slap in the face for armed private citizens who have successfully defended themselves against criminal attacks because they had a gun.”
Legal experts echoed that outrage. Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law, described the remarks as clear evidence of bias.
“These comments are bizarre. Far too many judges say what is on their minds. And they truly hate guns,” Blackman said.
Blackman pointed out that such comments would be equally inappropriate if judges admitted they “freak out” around vaccines or abortion. The problem isn’t limited to guns – it’s about judges letting personal politics bleed into their rulings.
The Bigger Problem – Judicial Bias
This isn’t just about two offhand remarks. It’s about a culture of hostility toward the Second Amendment inside America’s federal courts.
Consider Brown’s case. He’s a career criminal who repeatedly managed to obtain firearms in Washington state, one of the top ten most restrictive states in the country. Strict laws didn’t stop him from carrying a loaded Glock. But instead of questioning why gun control failed, Judge Robart decided to lecture Americans about how firearms are “trouble.”
Gottlieb summed it up perfectly, noting that Brown’s arrest proves “the failure of gun control laws” since the criminal had prior convictions and still managed to get another gun.
Meanwhile, millions of law-abiding citizens use firearms responsibly every day – for self-defense, protection of their families, and crime prevention. Yet, they’re the ones being talked down to by judges who can’t hide their contempt.
At Least One Judge Gets It
Not all judges are blind to the reality of the Second Amendment. Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee on the 9th Circuit, has repeatedly called out his colleagues for their ignorance about firearms.
“Many judges (and gun-banning governments) know next to nothing about how guns actually work,” VanDyke warned in a dissent against California’s magazine ban.
To drive home the point, VanDyke even released a dissent video where he assembled and disassembled firearms on camera to educate his peers about the basics.
“Like many of this court’s ideas about the Second Amendment, it stems from a basic misunderstanding of how firearms work,” he said.
That’s the kind of common sense gun owners wish was more common in the judiciary.
The Bottom Line
When judges admit they “freak out” around firearms or call guns “an invitation to trouble,” they reveal exactly how they’ll rule when your rights are on the line.
Reyes is overseeing police operations while confessing she can’t stomach the tools officers use to protect citizens. Robart is dismissing firearms as nothing but trouble while criminals keep breaking the very laws he pretends will work.
The truth is simple: personal bias has no place on the bench. The Constitution doesn’t give judges permission to rewrite the Second Amendment because of their feelings.
As Gottlieb reminded, “for millions of honest citizens, having a gun in an emergency has gotten them out of trouble and prevented tragedies.”
That reality deserves respect – not ridicule from the very people entrusted to defend the Bill of Rights.
Because if judges can openly scorn the Second Amendment today, Americans should be asking: which constitutional right will they target next?
