Canterbury has been Fraternity Order of Police (FOP) president for 16 years, having previously spent 26 years in the Horry County, South Carolina, Police Department’s patrol, criminal and training divisions, according to the White House statement.

“Chuck is one of the most honorable people I’ve ever worked with and if he is selected, I can’t think of a finer person to take the position,” said Jonathan Thompson, executive director of the National Sheriffs’ Association. Thompson made the remarks to POLITICO in Nov. 2018, when Canterbury’s name was first floated for the position.

[ … ]

Canterbury has been vocal in his Second Amendment support, testifying July 2009 before the Senate Judiciary Committee in support of the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who had worked closely with police as a Manhattan prosecutor early in her career:

“I want no mistake to be made,” Canterbury testified. “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment. In fact, if I thought that Judge Sotomayor’s presence on the court posed a threat to my Second Amendment right, I would not be supporting her here today.”

Dave Kopel explains why support for Sotomayor was problematic.

Perhaps the most startling aspect of the Supreme Court opinions in McDonald v. Chicago was the dissenters’ assault on District of Columbia v. Heller. Not only did Justice Stephen G. Breyer vote against extending the Second Amendment to state and local governments, he also argued forcefully and at length for overturning Heller and, therefore, for turning the Second Amendment into a practical nullity. Ominously, Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined the Breyer dissent – contradicting what she told the U.S. Senate and the American people last summer.

So was support for Sotomayor just a brain seizure or an indication of a deeper problem?  First, Canterbury wants local and state police to know all about NICS denials.  Doubtless such support for this law is couched in terms of learning about felons trying to purchase weapons, but swept into the mix are veterans who didn’t know they were on the denial list for NICS due to reporting conducted by the DoD for things like PTSD.

More troublesome still is this letter from Canterbury to Patrick Leahy.

Dear Mr. Chairman,

I am writing on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, the oldest and largest law enforcement organization in the United States, to strongly recommend that several measures, all absolutely critical elements of addressing gun violence, be included in any legislation moving forward as a result of your deliberations.
These measures are:

•Expansion of background checks on firearm purchasers;
• Reinvigoration of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATP) to ensure that it has the tools and resources necessary to its mission;
• Improved law enforcement access to mental health records in the context of firearms acquisition;
• Funding to put more State and local law enforcement officers on the street.

[ … ]

We believe the most logical starting point to address gun violence is the expansion of the background check system. Incomplete or absent background checks create a gaping hole in the wall between firearms and criminals. Loopholes in the background check system give criminals unprecedented opportunity to access firearms. This problem must be remedied quickly. An expanded and improved background check system will provide the first level of defense against criminals arming themselves.

[ … ]

Specifically, the confirmation ofB. Todd Jones must occur as quickly as possible. As Acting Director at ATP, Mr. Jones has provided the agency the leadership and vision which has been lacking in recent years. Mr. Jones has the requisite experience pursuing tough firearms and weapons cases and has demonstrated the ability to reset ATP after recent tumultuous investigations.

[ … ]

Along with comprehensive background checks, better access to mental health records is critical to keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Without access to these records, law enforcement, at all levels of government, is handicapped which gives the criminal element the advantage.

So with this single letter, we’ve learned that Canterbury is in favor of [a] universal background checks, [b] the nomination of B. Todd Jones as director of the ATF, and [c] law enforcement access to medical records.

The surest sign of a collectivist and statist is support for universal background checks, which is the denial of free trade, the infringement of the RKBA and in general the suppression of liberty.

We all know the record that B. Todd Jones left at the ATF, and while it’s easy to place this last one in the category of “Fix-NICS,” it isn’t exactly that.  Remember, Canterbury wrote this while president of the fraternal order of police.  He’s arguing for access to medical records by all local and state police, all justified and codified at the federal level.  You can jettison the medical privacy laws, according to Canterbury.  He wants to see your records.

But just to make it clear, Canterbury says, “I take a back seat to no one in my reverence for the Second Amendment.”  His record proves otherwise.  It would be far too simple merely to speak out against Canterbury.  I would expect nothing less from the president of the fraternal order of police.

The deeper problem is with Trump himself for nominating Canterbury.  First Trump gave us the bump stock ban.  Then he gave us support for red flag laws, I’m certain lending credibility to and giving cover for Lindsey Graham’s efforts to nationalize funding for so-called “extreme risk protection orders.”

Now he is giving us a gun controller for head of the ATF.  Don’t be surprised.  From the very beginning Trump was and always will be a Northeastern progressive.  He will never be anything other than what he is.  He will not change.  He cannot change.

He wouldn’t even understand why anyone would object to Canterbury’s nomination, in fact.  His distance from the common man wouldn’t even allow him to understand the very language of proponents of the RKBA.  We were brought up in a different cultural milieu, we have a different world and life view, we speak different languages.  It isn’t even possible to translate or interpret the languages or bridge the gap between us, we are so different.  If I were to speak to Trump about this, I may as well be speaking Mandarin.

I do not think it would be possible for Trump to understand why we would object to Canterbury, but mind you, we will likely see him sitting in front of Congress as an “expert” testifying about why America needs universal background checks and access to all medical records.  He’s done it as president of the fraternal order of police, and there is no reason to think he’s changed.  Trump has merely given him more power.