California Senator Takes Issue With GOA Support for Trump’s Pick for FBI

Kash Patel looks like a lock to be confirmed as the next director of the FBI, but Democrats did their utmost to derail his nomination on Thursday. As POLITICO describes his confirmation hearing, however, “what was supposed to be a blockbuster hearing eviscerating Trump’s FBI pick turned into attempts to create a viral moment that never came to pass.”

That would include California Sen. Alex Padilla’s attempt to grill Patel on his views of the Second Amendment, as well as the support he’s received from Gun Owners of America. 

Asked by Padilla whether Patel believes background checks on firearm purchases are constitutional during the nominee’s confirmation hearing Thursday, Patel responded that he didn’t know “the in-depths of it,” but believed “that’s what the Supreme Court said.”

“Do you think civilian ownership of machine guns is protected by the Second Amendment?” Padilla fired back. 

“Whatever the courts rule in regards to the Second Amendment is what is protected by the Second Amendment,” Patel responded.

Padilla explained that his line of questioning was due to an “association” between Patel and the group Gun Owners of America, which enthusiastically endorsed Trump’s choice to lead the FBI.

“GOA Applauds Nomination of ‘Fiercely Pro-Gun’ Kash Patel for FBI Director,” the organization said in a press release following Trump’s announcement to tap Patel. 

Padilla expressed concern over the enthusiastic endorsement, arguing that the organization has taken “extreme positions” on guns.

“Gun Owners of America has taken extreme positions, including the position that all background checks are unconstitutional and that civilian ownership of machine guns is protected under the Second Amendment,” Padilla said.

I’ll admit that I’m not that impressed with Patel’s response. I would have loved to have seen him throw some of Padilla’s endorsements back in his face. The California Democrat was endorsed by Everytown for Gun Safety, for instance; the same group that’s backing SB 3 in Colorado, which would ban virtually all gas-operated semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols that can accept a detachable magazine. That is an extreme position, and one that eviscerates our right to keep and bear arms. 

Patel’s response that the Second Amendment protects whatever the courts say it protects leaves a lot to be desired. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, period. It’s fair to say that there’s no evidence the current makeup of the Supreme Court is interested in declaring all background checks unconstitutional or throwing out the National Firearms Act on 2A grounds, but that doesn’t mean that full-auto firearms aren’t protected by the plain language of the Second Amendment and the national tradition of gun ownership. 

Patel was trying to satisfy the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not Second Amendment advocates, and I’m not exactly surprised by his expressed deference to the Court. And for what it’s worth, it sounds like he didn’t do any damage to his confirmation prospects, even if he caused some eye-rolling among 2A activists. 

Patel’s hearing appears to have done nothing to meaningfully chip away at Republican support. And by the end, even one of the panel’s Democrats said he anticipated Patel would be confirmed.

“I suspect it will be Mr. Patel,” Sen. Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat and a member of the Judiciary Committee, conceded.

Assuming the committee will vote to report Patel’s nomination to the full Senate, there’s still a chance Patel will face hurdles with GOP lawmakers who don’t sit on Judiciary. Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski and former Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky voted to oppose Trump’s pick to lead the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, forcing Vice President JD Vance to break a 50-50 tie. Their views on Patel, however, remain publicly unarticulated.

I suspect that Patel will win confirmation fairly easily. Whether he uses his position as head of the FBI to promote and protect the right to keep and bear arms, however, is still an open question.