President Trump Donald John TrumpFederal prosecutor speaks out, says Barr 'has brought shame' on Justice Dept. Former Pence aide: White House staffers discussed Trump refusing to leave office Progressive group buys domain name of Trump's No. 1 Supreme Court pick MORE's pick to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is on life support amid opposition from Republican senators.

Kenneth Charles "Chuck" Canterbury is getting pushback from multiple Republican senators on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which canceled a Thursday business meeting where his nomination was scheduled to get a vote.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sens. John Kennedy John Neely KennedyMORE (R-La.) and Josh Hawley Joshua (Josh) David HawleyHillicon Valley: Subpoenas for Facebook, Google and Twitter on the cards | Wray rebuffs mail-in voting conspiracies | Reps. raise mass surveillance concerns Trump faces tricky choice on Supreme Court pick FBI director warns that Chinese hackers are still targeting US COVID-19 research MORE (R-Mo.) both told The Hill on Thursday that they would not support Canterbury if his nomination is brought up for a vote in the committee.

"I think we can do better, no disrespect," Kennedy said of why he was opposed to Trump's pick.

Hawley pointed to Canterbury's stance on the Second Amendment, calling it "really, really concerning."

"I just think that his record on the Second Amendment is really, really concerning. ... I asked him specifically about the rulemaking authority of the ATF and he didn't seem familiar with that at all. So I think all of that's really, really concerning," Hawley said.

Canterbury, who was previously president of the National Fraternal Order of Police, rankled senators during his hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee earlier this year by dodging their questions or giving vague answers when it came to his views on firearms.

A spokesman for Sen. Mike Lee Michael (Mike) Shumway LeeBipartisan representatives demand answers on expired surveillance programs McConnell shores up GOP support for coronavirus package McConnell tries to unify GOP MORE (Utah), a member of the committee, said the GOP senator supported the decision to delay a committee vote on Canterbury.

“Sen. Lee has concerns about Canterbury's Second Amendment views and is pleased the markup has been delayed," said Conn Carroll.

Asked if he could support Canterbury, a spokesman for Sen. Ben Sasse Benjamin (Ben) Eric SasseWhy a backdoor to encrypted data is detrimental to cybersecurity and data integrity McEnany says Trump will accept result of 'free and fair election' McConnell pushes back on Trump: 'There will be an orderly transition' MORE (R-Neb.) noted that the senator "had expressed numerous concerns about his view of the Second Amendment."

Republicans hold a 12-10 majority on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Without help from Democrats Canterbury would not have the support to clear the panel.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham Lindsey Olin GrahamLincoln Project mocks Lindsey Graham's fundraising lag with Sarah McLachlan-themed video The Hill's Morning Report - Sponsored by Facebook - Republicans lawmakers rebuke Trump on election Trump dumbfounds GOP with latest unforced error MORE (R-S.C.) demurred when asked by The Hill on Thursday about whether or not he was still planning to give Canterbury a vote.

"We're going to talk about that and see where the committee is on that, and I'll let you know when we get back," he said, referring to the Senate's upcoming two-week recess.

Asked if he had Republican senators expressing concerns about the nomination, he added "yeah, yeah."

A Senate GOP aide noted that it remained to be seen if Canterbury's nomination would be withdrawn or delayed indefinitely, but that he didn't currently have sufficient support to clear the committee.

Spokespeople for the White House didn't immediately respond to a request for comment about if there had been any discussion on withdrawing the nomination.

But Hawley suggested that it might not come up for a vote.

"I don't know that I'm going to have to make that decision, let's put it that way," he said. "But if we did vote on him I would be a no."

Jesse Byrnes contributed