Which new SC Justice will help with our gun laws ??

[capt14k 2,052]

Yes I shouldn't just blame Trump. It is the RINOS who passed that budget and who moved Mark Bennet nomination along. Ted Cruz voted against both. Trump ran as anti establishment and draining the swamp, but he is entrenched in the establishment and has been for years. Also yes 2A is very important because everything else can change with the wind. Tax cuts could be gone with the next Democrat Admimistration see Obama. Fundamental change to the Supreme Court is long lasting.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[TokenEntry 293]

If Hardiman was nominated and rejected later what harm would it have done to Kavanaugh as a second nominee by Trump? I believe Hardiman should have been given priority to run the gauntlet past the Democrats as he was also nominated in the previous opening to SCOTUS. Does anyone know if there was an official list or statement made by Trump of who the candidates were for this seat opening on SCOTUS? If people are going to argue about this, we should have all the facts in.

Regards,

TokenEntry

[capt14k 2,052]

If Hardiman was nominated and rejected later what harm would it have done to Kavanaugh as a second nominee by Trump? I believe Hardiman should have been given priority to run the gauntlet past the Democrats as he was also nominated in the previous opening to SCOTUS. Does anyone know if there was an official list or statement made by Trump of who the candidates were for this seat opening on SCOTUS? If people are going to argue about this, we should have all the facts in. Regards,

TokenEntry

 

 

The official list was of 25 of which Kavanaugh was added to the initial 20 after I'm sure the Bush people had a say. The supposed final 6 interviewed were Appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar, Joan Larsen and Thomas Hardiman.

 

 

In addition to Kavanuagh not being on the initial list of 20

 

The other new names on Trump's list are Amy Coney Barrett, a former Notre Dame law professor just confirmed last month to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit; Kevin Newsom, confirmed in August to a seat on the 11th Circuit court of appeals; Georgia Supreme Court Justice Britt Grant, a former state solicitor general; and Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Patrick Wyrick, also a former state solicitor general.

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/11/17/trump-adds-five-names-list-potential-supreme-court-justices/875983001/

 

Hardiman was on the initial list of 20. Those were names fully vetted and approved by Conservative organizations.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Zeke 5,504]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1016490627742171137?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1016490627742171137&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-government%2F2018%2F07%2F09%2Fsen-chris-murphy-brett-kavanaugh-is-a-second-amendment-radical%2F

lol a 2nd amendment radical!

good enough for me.

[TokenEntry 293]

3 minutes ago, capt14k said:

The official list was of 25 of which Kavanaugh was added to the initial 20 after I'm sure the Bush people had a say. The supposed final 6 interviewed were Appeals court judges Brett Kavanaugh, Raymond Kethledge, Amy Coney Barrett, Amul Thapar, Joan Larsen and Thomas Hardiman.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think this was a huge opportunity missed by Trump. He could have definitely have shown where he stood for the 2nd Amendment. However, if Kavanaugh gets rejected and Hardiman is next in line. Then no harm, no foul. This is still a win for our side.

Something I found interesting as to when the the last occurrence of a rejected SCOTUS nominee happened. I know things are much different now with the nuclear option in place and that the country back then was a lot more simple. Interesting read nonetheless. 

Link - Senate.gov

The Senate Rejects a Supreme Court Nominee

 

---

May 7, 1930

 

On the seventh of May, 1930, the Senate rejected a Supreme Court nominee. What makes this action worth noting today is that it was the Senate’s only rejection of a Supreme Court candidate in the 74-year span between 1894 and 1968. Throughout most of the 19th century, the Senate had shown no such reticence, rejecting or otherwise blocking nearly one out of every three high court nominees.

Early in 1930, death claimed two Supreme Court justices. Republican president Herbert Hoover chose former associate justice Charles Evans Hughes to fill the vacant position of chief justice. As the deepening economic depression eroded the president’s clout on Capitol Hill, a coalition of southern senators and progressives from other regions sought to block Hughes’ confirmation. Some opposed the nominee for his close ties to large corporations, while others believed that his resignation from the Court years earlier to run as the 1916 Republican presidential nominee disqualified him from a second chance. After only several days of debate, the Senate confirmed his appointment, but with many members deeply resentful of the manner in which the administration had handled the nomination.

Three weeks after the Hughes confirmation, a second justice died. Hoover believed he had an easily confirmable candidate when he nominated John Parker, a prominent North Carolina Republican and chief judge of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Unfortunately for Judge Parker, two actions from his past doomed his chances. Several years earlier, he had delivered a strongly anti-labor opinion that infuriated the American Federation of Labor. The NAACP also joined the opposition in response to remarks Parker had made a decade before. In the midst of a 1920 campaign for governor of North Carolina, Parker had responded to a race-baiting prediction by his opponents that, if elected, he would encourage political participation by black citizens. “The participation of the Negro in politics,” said Parker, “is a source of evil and danger to both races and is not desired by the wise men in either race or by the Republican Party of North Carolina.” That comment, his anti-labor opinion, and senatorial resentment against the Hoover administration, led to his rejection by a vote of 39 to 41.

Hoover’s next nominee, Owen Roberts, cleared the Senate without controversy. Over the following 38 years, until 1968, the Senate approved all high court nominees, conducting roll-call votes on only seven of 24 candidates.

 

Regards,

TokenEntry

[ChrisJM981 924]

10 hours ago, 1LtCAP said:

Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's use of "intermediate scrutiny," saying an analysis "based on text, history, and tradition" is more consistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.

NJ has a history and tradition of banning handguns from being carried in public. I hope that doesn't bite us in the rear.

[MartyZ 693]

11 minutes ago, ChrisJM981 said:

NJ has a history and tradition of banning handguns from being carried in public. I hope that doesn't bite us in the rear.

DC had a history and tradition of banning ALL semi-auto handguns, but he agrees with Heller. I do believe that when he refers to history and tradition he is taking the entire country into consideration, not a state or 2.

[capt14k 2,052]

DC had a history and tradition of banning ALL semi-auto handguns, but he agrees with Heller. I do believe that when he refers to history and tradition he is taking the entire country into consideration, not a state or 2.

I didn't know the 2nd was changeable by history of Unconstitutional Laws. Always thought it needed to be ratified. Learned something new.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[1LtCAP 4,264]

9 hours ago, capt14k said:

 

Out of the 6 he was the worst pick. That is my opinion and I can back it up. Trump has done nothing for 2A since being POTUS. This pick didn't do anything either.

 

 

I also love how the Trump can do no wrong crowd glosses over his 9th Circuit Nominee Mark Bennett

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

there's rumors floating(probably false) that klinton is gonna try again in 2020........so......trump vs klinton. who ya voting for?

[capt14k 2,052]

there's rumors floating(probably false) that klinton is gonna try again in 2020........so......trump vs klinton. who ya voting for?

Trump of course, but I would rather be voting for Cruz or Pence. 

 

That line of thought in your question by the way is settling.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[1LtCAP 4,264]

wow.....i don't think i even wanna read past this post on pg5........this thread has deteriorated rather quickly into a mudslinging contest.

[capt14k 2,052]

We know where Hardiman stood on NJ carry laws.


He is a consistent supporter of gun rights, writing a dissenting opinion arguing the Court should have struck down on Second Amendment grounds a New Jersey law limiting handgun carry permits to people showing a “justifiable need” to carry handguns in public. He also sided with two plaintiffs challenging a federal law banning felons and some misdemeanants from owning guns; he did not argue that the whole law was unconstitutional, but contended that because the two plaintiffs were only convicted of nonviolent misdemeanors (corrupting a minor and carrying a handgun without a permit, respectively), a ban that applies to them overly burdens Second Amendment rights.

Adam Winkler, a law professor at UCLA and expert on Second Amendment issues, has described Hardiman as a “Second Amendment extremist” who would vote to strike down gun control laws in states like California and New York if put on the Supreme Court.



Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[MartyZ 693]

17 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I didn't know the 2nd was changeable by history of Unconstitutional Laws. Always thought it needed to be ratified. Learned something new.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I'm not following you. I think we ALL agree that 2A should not be ratified. But you keep forgetting that we are playing a game against a cheating team, namely the Dems, and we need to play it strategically. Pick a SCOTUS judge to replace Kennedy that the Dems would have a hard time objecting to, in this case they can't say he will reverse Roe. Then when RBG kicks the bucket, we know we will have a real war on our hands. We need to pick our battles wisely. no one is happy with the situation we are in but we need to play the cards we're dealt strategically.

[capt14k 2,052]

I'm not following you. I think we ALL agree that 2A should not be ratified. But you keep forgetting that we are playing a game against a cheating team, namely the Dems, and we need to play it strategically. Pick a SCOTUS judge to replace Kennedy that the Dems would have a hard time objecting to, in this case they can't say he will reverse Roe. Then when RBG kicks the bucket, we know we will have a real war on our hands. We need to pick our battles wisely. no one is happy with the situation we are in but we need to play the cards we're dealt strategically.

I respectfully disagree. We play the compromise game while Dems stick together and never compromise. They get their way even when GOP is in power. Worst case we had to wait for after the midterms to confirm Hardiman. Best case now is Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed and Hardiman gets confirmed after the midterms.

 

My post you quoted was sarcasm.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[MartyZ 693]

5 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I respectfully disagree. We play the compromise game while Dems stick together and never compromise. They get their way even when GOP is in power. Worst case we had to wait for after the midterms to confirm Hardiman. Best case now is Kavanaugh doesn't get confirmed and Hardiman gets confirmed after the midterms.

 

My post you quoted was sarcasm.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

Sorry, missed the sarcasm, too early in the morning for me. I believe we all want the same think just have different opinions on how to get it, which is good. What I have seen from Trump is a game of strategy, trying to trick the Dems instead of force feed them. That could be a good or bad strategy, I don't know yet. But I shutter to think what the alternative would have been had the hildabeast won.

[TokenEntry 293]

Everyone is going to have an opinion, to which they're entitled to. I was disappointed in hearing that Kavanaugh was chosen over Hardiman. I don't understand why Trump had not gone with his other nominee from the previous SCOTUS opening. He should have rammed it down the Democrats throats and taped shut with Hardiman's as his pick. Trump would have had the full backing of all the gun owners after some of the anti-gun legislation or the lack of support for 2nd Amendment he has shown. (Adding one to the list below from my past posts).

*After FL school shooting - Trump commented that he wanted to take away the guns first and worry about due process later.

*LV shooting -  Bump stock ban.

*Fixed NICS - Passed in Omnibus Bill

*HR367 Hearing Protection Act - No mention of it by Trump, not even on Twitter when it came up for vote.

 

Regards,

TokenEntry

 

 

[Zeke 5,504]

Hopefully 2 more in the future! Winning 

[NJGF 375]

Keep in mind that the Rep's have a very slim majority in the Senate. if they lose a couple of moderate senators (like Collins or Murkowski) they may not pick up enough Dem's to win. btw: both of them declined invitations to yesterdays announcement. Trump has spoken to a lot of Senators and this may be a very good strategic pick for now. If they pick up Senate seats in November, the next appointment can be more like Hardiman (or Hardiman himself).

[bhunted 887]

31 minutes ago, TokenEntry said:

Everyone is going to have an opinion, to which they're entitled to. I was disappointed in hearing that Kavanaugh was chosen over Hardiman. I don't understand why Trump had not gone with his other nominee from the previous SCOTUS opening. He should have rammed it down the Democrats throats and taped shut with Hardiman's as his pick. Trump would have had the full backing of all the gun owners after some of the anti-gun legislation or the lack of support for 2nd Amendment he has shown. (Adding one to the list below from my past posts).

*After FL school shooting - Trump commented that he wanted to take away the guns first and worry about due process later.

*LV shooting -  Bump stock ban.

*Fixed NICS - Passed in Omnibus Bill

*HR367 Hearing Protection Act - No mention of it by Trump, not even on Twitter when it came up for vote.

 

Regards,

TokenEntry

 

 

It was part of Kennedy stepping down. Kennedy requested it. That was the deal for the most part.

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-trump-private-meeting-706137?__twitter_impression=true

[WP22 1,558]

Just doing a last in line....

 

Ted Kopel at the volokh conspiracy has a complete run down on Kavanaugh's 2A opinions. It comes directly from the horse's mouth. 

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Edit--And if after reading it, you still think he was the best pick for our 2A rights, I got nothing else for you.

[capt14k 2,052]

Just doing a last in line....
 
Ted Kopel at the volokh conspiracy has a complete run down on Kavanaugh's 2A opinions. It comes directly from the horse's mouth. 
http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
 
Edit--And if after reading it, you still think he was the best pick for our 2A rights, I got nothing else for you.

Thank you. I actually bothered to read the opinions before commenting on Kavnanaugh which it is clear many did not. Though even after they read it they will still say it was the best choice because the NY Liberal is a God to them.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

It was part of Kennedy stepping down. Kennedy requested it. That was the deal for the most part.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/07/09/brett-kavanaugh-trump-private-meeting-706137?__twitter_impression=true

So Supreme Court Justices can pick their successors? To hell with the Constitution right?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

[MartyZ 693]

10 minutes ago, WP22 said:

Just doing a last in line....

 

Ted Kopel at the volokh conspiracy has a complete run down on Kavanaugh's 2A opinions. It comes directly from the horse's mouth. 

http://reason.com/volokh/2018/07/09/judge-kavanaugh-and-the-second-amendment?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

 

Edit--And if after reading it, you still think he was the best pick for our 2A rights, I got nothing else for you.

Am I reading something different than what you are reading?

He flat out said, and I quote, "Heller prevents a ban on semi-automatic handguns, and the same reasoning applies to similar rifles:", meaning he is against any AWB. He also says that registration is unconstitutional.

"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 semi-automatic 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."

Using tradition to say that no semi-automatic rifle should be banned.

Very important passage:

"In Judge Kavanaugh's view, "gun bans and regulations" should "be analyzed based on the Second Amendment's text, history, and tradition (as well as by appropriate analogues thereto when dealing with modern weapons and new circumstances..." He did not think judges should "re-calibrate the scope of the Second Amendment right based on judicial assessment of whether the law advances a sufficiently compelling or important government interest to override the individual right." In his view, Heller had been clear that Second Amendment cases should be decided "based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.""

Text = American, NOT NJ, Constitution

History = American, NOT NJ, historical view toward firearms

Tradition = America, NOT NJ, gun tradition

 

I honestly have no idea how this could be read in any other way.

He is against revisiting Roe, that is all, and that is how he was sold to Kennedy to hasten his retirement.

[capt14k 2,052]

Am I reading something different than what you are reading?

He flat out said, and I quote, "Heller prevents a ban on semi-automatic handguns, and the same reasoning applies to similar rifles:", meaning he is against any AWB. He also says that registration is unconstitutional.

"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 semi-automatic 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."

Using tradition to say that no semi-automatic rifle should be banned.

Very important passage:

"In Judge Kavanaugh's view, "gun bans and regulations" should "be analyzed based on the Second Amendment's text, history, and tradition (as well as by appropriate analogues thereto when dealing with modern weapons and new circumstances..." He did not think judges should "re-calibrate the scope of the Second Amendment right based on judicial assessment of whether the law advances a sufficiently compelling or important government interest to override the individual right." In his view, Heller had been clear that Second Amendment cases should be decided "based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.""

Text = American, NOT NJ, Constitution

History = American, NOT NJ, historical view toward firearms

Tradition = America, NOT NJ, gun tradition

 

I honestly have no idea how this could be read in any other way.

He is against revisiting Roe, that is all, and that is how he was sold to Kennedy to hasten his retirement.

Read all of it. Especially the common use parts and the magazine limits. No chance he would overturn Hughes Amendment. I don't even think he would overturn NJ carry laws. He is a big proponent of stare decisis. So Roe v Wade he will not go against. At the same time separate but equal was ok to overturn? Can't have it both ways. Bad decisions need to be corrected. I disagree with some of Heller as well. Scalia was going soft like all Justices except Thomas do in their old age.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

[MartyZ 693]

3 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Read all of it. Especially the common use parts and the magazine limits.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

I saw that, and while other judges supported the ban Kavanaugh basically said, show me where a ban is in common use today. He did not support it and told the lower court to prove him wrong. The fact that 6 out of 50 states have the ban means that the ban is not in common use.

"In order to apply Heller's test to this prohibition, we must know whether magazines with more than 10 rounds have traditionally been banned and are not in common use."

Again, are we all reading different things?

[capt14k 2,052]

I saw that, and while other judges supported the ban Kavanaugh basically said, show me where a ban is in common use today. He did not support it and told the lower court to prove him wrong. The fact that 6 out of 50 states have the ban means that the ban is not in common use. "In order to apply Heller's test to this prohibition, we must know whether magazines with more than 10 rounds have traditionally been banned and are not in common use."

Again, are we all reading different things?

 

Can you show me where common use is a factor in the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms? 

 

You left out this part

 

(By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

 

[MartyZ 693]

Just now, capt14k said:

Can you show me where common use is a factor in the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

We are talking about 2 different things. I am NOT talking about the verbiage of the 2A, I think we are all familiar with that. We are talking about how will Kavanaugh vote on 2A cases. And based on his own words, it appears that his decisions on 2A cases will be in our favor.

[WP22 1,558]

4 minutes ago, MartyZ said:

I saw that, and while other judges supported the ban Kavanaugh basically said, show me where a ban is in common use today. He did not support it and told the lower court to prove him wrong. The fact that 6 out of 50 states have the ban means that the ban is not in common use.

"In order to apply Heller's test to this prohibition, we must know whether magazines with more than 10 rounds have traditionally been banned and are not in common use."

Again, are we all reading different things?

Did you read this part about licensing and qualifications:

"Licensing requirements mandate that gun owners meet certain standards or pass certain tests before owning guns or using them in particular ways. Those laws can advance gun safety by ensuring that owners understand how to handle guns safely, particularly before guns are carried in public. For example, many jurisdictions that permit the carrying of concealed weapons have traditionally imposed licensing requirements on persons who wish to carry such weapons. Registration requirements, by contrast, require registration of individual guns and do not meaningfully serve the purpose of ensuring that owners know how to operate guns safely in the way certain licensing requirements can. For that reason, registration requirements are often seen as half-a-loaf measures aimed at deterring gun ownership...."

 

 

[capt14k 2,052]

We are talking about 2 different things. I am NOT talking about the verbiage of the 2A, I think we are all familiar with that. We are talking about how will Kavanaugh vote on 2A cases. And based on his own words, it appears that his decisions on 2A cases will be in our favor.

You get that from this?   

 

 

Judge Kavanaugh explained that Heller authorized many gun controls:

 

Indeed, Heller largely preserved the status quo of gun regulation in the United States. Hellerestablished that traditional and common gun laws in the United States remain constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court simply pushed back against an outlier local law—D.C.'s handgun ban—that went far beyond the traditional line of gun regulation. As Helleremphasized: "Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's" law. 554 U.S. at 629.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[MartyZ 693]

Just now, WP22 said:

Did you read this part about licensing and qualifications:

"Licensing requirements mandate that gun owners meet certain standards or pass certain tests before owning guns or using them in particular ways. Those laws can advance gun safety by ensuring that owners understand how to handle guns safely, particularly before guns are carried in public. For example, many jurisdictions that permit the carrying of concealed weapons have traditionally imposed licensing requirements on persons who wish to carry such weapons. Registration requirements, by contrast, require registration of individual guns and do not meaningfully serve the purpose of ensuring that owners know how to operate guns safely in the way certain licensing requirements can. For that reason, registration requirements are often seen as half-a-loaf measures aimed at deterring gun ownership...."

 

 

Yes, I did, licensing and training before for concealed carry purposes. I see no issue with that, isn't that what most shall issue states do?

[MartyZ 693]

4 minutes ago, capt14k said:

You get that from this?

 

ING TOPICS

 

MENU

 

VOLOKH CONSPIRACY

 

MENU

 

Mostly law professors, blogging on whatever we please since 2002 · Hosted by The Washington Post, 2014-2017 · Hosted by Reason 2017 · Sometimes contrarian · Often libertarian · Always independent

 

Judge Kavanaugh and the Second Amendment

 

The text, history, and tradition methodology applied to D.C.'s unusually restrictive gun laws.

 

David Kopel|Jul. 9, 2018 9:13 pm

 

Brett Kavanaugh

 

 

 

Supreme Court

 

No nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court has had such a detailed record on Second Amendment as does Brett Kavanaugh. His 2011 dissenting opinion in the case known as Heller II was consistent with his long-standing adherence to text, history, tradition, and Supreme Court precedent.

 

Background: In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment is an individual right, and is not limited only to militiamen. The Court carefully examined the text of the Second Amendment and the history of the right from early England through Reconstruction. The Court held two D.C. ordinances to violate the Second Amendment: a handgun ban and a prohibition on using any firearm in the home for self-defense. The District also forbade all gun carrying without a permit, even carrying shotgun from one's bedroom to the basement for cleaning. Carry permits were never issued. The Court ordered D.C. to issue Dick Heller a carry permit.

 

Following the Supreme Court decision, the D.C. Council enacted very restrictive gun controls. A new lawsuit resulted, among whose plaintiffs were Mr. Heller. In the 2011 case known as Heller II, a 2-1 panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld some of the new D.C. ordinances and remanded others to the district court. Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion. Later, in 2015's Heller III,another 2-1 D.C. Circuit panel (not including Judge Kavanaugh) upheld some more of the D.C. laws and held others unconstitutional. (Here's my analysis of Heller III.)

 

The 2011 Heller II majority opinion has had broad influence in the lower federal courts. (For details: Kopel & Greenlee, The Federal Circuits' Second Amendment Doctrines, St. Louis University Law Journal (2017)). Judge Kavanaugh offered a different approach.

 

"Text, history, and tradition" methodology for Second Amendment cases

 

Judge Kavanaugh noted the controversy over gun control, and cited articles by Judges Richard Posner and J. Harvie Wilkinson, III, which criticized the Hellerdecision. (Here's a critique of Judge Wilkinson's critique.) "As a lower court, however, it is not our role to re-litigate Heller or to bend it in any particular direction. Our sole job is to faithfully apply Hellerand the approach it set forth for analyzing gun bans and regulations."

 

The new D.C. law banned many semi-automatic rifles. The prohibition was acknowledged to be the broadest in the United States. Judge Kavanaugh explained that Heller prevents a ban on semi-automatic handguns, and the same reasoning applies to similar rifles:

 

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 semi-automatic 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, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller'sprotection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

 

The new D.C. gun registration laws were also unusual:

 

D.C.'s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald [v. Chicago, 2010] said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, "longstanding" gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns—as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory record-keeping by gun sellers—has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual.

 

Under Heller's history-and tradition-based test, D.C.'s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.

 

Judge Kavanaugh explained that Heller authorized many gun controls:

 

Indeed, Heller largely preserved the status quo of gun regulation in the United States. Hellerestablished that traditional and common gun laws in the United States remain constitutionally permissible. The Supreme Court simply pushed back against an outlier local law—D.C.'s handgun ban—that went far beyond the traditional line of gun regulation. As Helleremphasized: "Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's" law. 554 U.S. at 629.

 

...D.C. appeared to push the envelope again, with its new ban on semi-automatic rifles and its broad gun registration requirement. D.C.'s public safety motivation in enacting these laws is worthy of great respect. But the means D.C. has chosen are again constitutionally problematic. The D.C. gun provisions at issue here, like the ban at issue in Heller, are outliers that are not traditional or common in the United States. As with D.C.'s handgun ban, therefore, holding these D.C. laws unconstitutional would not lead to nationwide tumult. Rather, such a holding would maintain the balance historically and traditionally struck in the United States between public safety and the individual right to keep arms—a history and tradition that Helleraffirmed and adopted as determining the scope of the Second Amendment right.

 

In Judge Kavanaugh's view, "gun bans and regulations" should "be analyzed based on the Second Amendment's text, history, and tradition (as well as by appropriate analogues thereto when dealing with modern weapons and new circumstances..." He did not think judges should "re-calibrate the scope of the Second Amendment right based on judicial assessment of whether the law advances a sufficiently compelling or important government interest to override the individual right." In his view, Heller had been clear that Second Amendment cases should be decided "based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny."

 

Judge Kavanaugh's dissent detailed how the Heller opinion relied on "text, history, and tradition." So too was McDonald v. Chicago, he argued. (McDonald, decided in 2010, held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, thanks to the Fourteenth Amendment.) He noted that this approach was compatible with gun control:

 

Indeed, governments appear to have more flexibility and power to impose gun regulations under a test based on text, history, and tradition than they would under strict scrutiny. After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the Court said in Heller. By contrast, if courts applied strict scrutiny, then presumably very few gun regulations would be upheld

 

 

And this

 

 

Indeed, Heller largely preserved the status quo of gun regulation in the United States. Hellerestablished that traditional and common gun laws in the United States remain constitutionally permissible. 

 

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

 

 

 

That is exactly what I see, he said Heller should not be re-litigated and taken at face value, and that the Heller decision for semi-auto handguns should be applied to semi-auto rifles.

We are reading the same thing and see different things. I understand that you have hated Trump for a long time and are looking to find what he has done wrong. But he has not done anything wrong in this case in my opinion, and your opinion varies, I understand. But nothing in any of the mentioned text, tells me anything other then he is Pr-2A and will only be beneficial to us, maybe not as beneficial as others but beneficial none the less.