• If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.


No announcement yet.

Kavanaugh brings clear reasoning to Second Amendment decisions

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Kavanaugh brings clear reasoning to Second Amendment decisions

    It sounds like Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a good choice to fill the slot left by Justice Kennedy wen he retires.

    Some in the firearms community are complaining that Kavanaugh is an establishment type due to his ties to the corrupt Bush clan. All I can think of is can you imagine what kind of a fascist socialist antigun bigot Hithery Clinton would put on the Supreme Court had she and her political mafia succeeded in stealing the 2016 election??

    JMHO but to me it seems that pro-gun, pro-freedom, pro-constitution Americans have much to be grateful for with Trump in the White House. I have no doubt that if Clinton had succeeded in stealing the election, she would have had her jackbooted thugs kicking in doors and killing lawful Americans in their living rooms in an effort to confiscate their firearms by now.


    Kavanaugh brings clear reasoning to Second Amendment decisions -- that's why liberals are freaking out

    By Frank Miniter

    Published July 10, 2018


    If we were to pick one symbol of freedom in today’s politically charged America, it must be the gun. The constitutional right to own and carry a firearm sets America apart from the world and puts us ahead of every other nation in terms of individual freedom.

    It is therefore fitting that both sides of the gun issue are voicing some of the clearest comments on President Trump’s nomination Monday of Judge Brett Kavanaugh – currently serving on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia – to become an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun rights group, Everytown for Gun Safety, essentially declared this judge would end our civil society, saying it a statement: “Judge Kavanaugh has applied an extreme and dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment when determining whether a law is constitutional, one that does not take into account a law’s impact on public safety.”

    Meanwhile, on the pro-freedom side, Lawrence Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the trade association for the firearms, said: “We are confident that Judge Kavanaugh will serve our nation with distinction as an associate justice of our nation’s highest court and that he will make decisions that will serve to protect the Second Amendment and other Constitutionally guaranteed rights of law-abiding Americans.”
    What other constitutionally protected right is given such a test? Can the government also decide which law-abiding citizens really need their right to free speech or religion? How about who gets due process under the law?
    Judge Kavanaugh certainly does offer clarity on this often politically obscured issue. In concise, logical prose Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissent to a case that followed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 Heller v. D.C. decision, which found the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to bear arms.

    In this follow-up case, a D.C. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that Washington, D.C. could ban the possession of most semiautomatic rifles.

    Judge Kavanaugh disagreed. He wrote in a dissent: “In Heller, the Supreme Court held that handguns – the vast majority of which today are semi-automatic – are constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens.
    There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles. Semi-automatic rifles, like semi-automatic handguns, have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens for self-defense in the home, hunting, and other lawful uses. Moreover, semiautomatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller’s protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.’s ban on them is unconstitutional.”

    Such clear and succinct reasoning is precisely what those who would like to reverse the Heller decision and thereby take away our individual right to bear arms fear most.

    Clear reasoning is, after all, infectious. It carries beyond media filters. When people come across honest and crisp reasoning they stop and think: Oh, I get it now. This is about freedom.

    Still, Kavanaugh won’t change the make up on the Supreme Court on the Second Amendment. Retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy voted for an honest reading of the U.S. Constitution, and thereby for freedom in the Heller and 2010 McDonald decisions (both 5-4 votes on the high court).

    I’ll never forget the time I sat in the press section in the balcony of the Supreme Court during the Heller hearing. When Justice Kennedy tipped his hand that he reads the Second Amendment to mean what it says, a liberal journalist next me sighed as if in pain: “Oh, no.”

    Yes, oh no, here’s another justice who respects the U.S. Bill of Rights and American freedom.

    This is ever more important today, as the Supreme Court has declined to take another gun-rights case since declaring that the Second Amendment also restricts state and local governments in its McDonalddecision.

    The high court even passed on
    Peruta v. California, a case challenging local restrictions in California that require a person to prove to the local government’s satisfaction that they really need their right to bear arms before the local authorities will allow them to carry a handgun.

    What other constitutionally protected right is given such a test? Can the government also decide which law-abiding citizens really need their right to free speech or religion? How about who gets due process under the law?

    Clearly, even if the Hellerdecision is left alone (anyone who reads the dissents in Heller and McDonald will plainly see the liberal bloc of justices would like to reverse this ruling) there are big questions the Supreme Court will at some point have to answer about our Second Amendment freedoms.

    This makes it very important to have justices who will clearly and honestly interpret the Constitution, like Kavanaugh, on the Supreme Court in this hyper-partisan age.

    Frank Miniter is author of several books including "The Future of the Gun" & "The Ultimate Man’s Survival Guide." His forthcoming book "Spies in Congress: Inside the Democrats' Covered-Up Cyber Scandal" will be released by Post Hill Press in October.
    "There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights." - Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler, USMC

    "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson