Share This Article with a Friend!

Why Gun Grabbers Are All In To Defeat Kavanaugh Nomination

Our friends at the Second Amendment Foundation recently sent around an email explaining why the gun grabbers are so vehemently against the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill the Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Anti-Second Amendment groups spent more than $80 million in 2016 to elect Hillary Clinton president and a Brett KavanaughSenate that would confirm her Supreme Court nominees. They failed.

Then it spent at least $3 million in 2017 to defeat Neil Gorsuch's confirmation to the Supreme Court. They failed.

Now the President has nominated another pro-gun rights person to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, and there's no doubt the gun grabbers are going to spend millions of dollars trying to derail another justice who will NOT fall in line with their extremist gun ban agenda.

They cannot afford another defeat says the Second Amendment Foundation, and they are right.

The anti-2A industry is a multi-billion-dollar project of some of America’s most radical Leftists. They’ve squandered billions of dollars they’ve received from liberal billionaires like George Soros and Michael Bloomberg.

And their efforts have failed – spectacularly.

Part of the reason is that hunters and others who enjoy the shooting sports are fiercely dedicated to protecting their right to pursue their sport, but there’s another reason that the elitist gun ban crowd is too blinded by their own liberal prejudices to see.

Americans are becoming increasingly alarmed by the violent rhetoric of the Left, and they see the Second Amendment as their best line of defense against the assaults, political oppression and corruption of the Left.

And Judge Kavanaugh seems to share in and support the reasoning of Justice Antonin Scalia and his brilliant framing of the Second Amendment as an individual right to self-defense as framed in the Heller decision.

As NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported, Kavanaugh has staked out an unusually strong position in favor of gun rights.

In 2011, he wrote a 52-page dissent from a decision that upheld a D.C. ban on "assault weapons" and magazines of more than 10 rounds of bullets, plus broad registration requirements. Tellingly, the two judges in the majority were conservatives, both appointed by Republican presidents.

In his dissent, Kavanaugh argued that the Second Amendment, like the First Amendment guarantee of free speech, is a fundamental right that can be limited only in the narrowest of circumstances.

"A ban on a class of arms is not an incidental regulation," he wrote. "It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech."

Moreover, as he put it, it is not for judges to weigh public safety in evaluating whether a gun law is constitutional. Rather, he maintained that because rapid-fire weapons "are in common use today," and "have not been traditionally banned," the Constitution does not allow that they be banned now.

Ed Whelan summarized Judge Kavanaugh’s reasoning in a July 4, 2018 column for National Review:

In follow-on litigation to the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the Second Amendment in D.C. v. Heller, a D.C. Circuit panel majority, consisting of two Republican appointees, upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic rifles and its registration requirement for all guns in D.C. Judge Kavanaugh dissented (in Heller v. D.C. (2011)). An excerpt from his 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. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

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 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 recordkeeping 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.

"Kavanaugh believes in a very vigorous Second Amendment right to bear arms, and he thinks there is little room for constitutionally permissible gun control," says UCLA law professor Adam Winkler, who has written extensively about the right to bear arms according to NPR’s Nina Totenberg.

The Senate’s Republican majority should approve Judge Kavanaugh’s appointment to the Supreme Court without delay. The toll-free Capitol Switchboard is (1-866-220-0044) we urge CHQ readers and friends to call their Senators today to urge them to support the nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Share this