I’m still researching this guy. I’m not overly thrilled with some political stuff in his background. On the other hand, the LA Times says this:
Kavanaugh appears to support broader gun rights under the 2nd Amendment. In 2011, he filed a 52-page dissent when the appeals court, by a 2-1 vote, upheld a District of Columbia ordinance that prohibited semiautomatic rifles Kavanaughand magazines holding more than 10 rounds. The judges in the majority, both Republican appointees, noted that several large states, including California and New York, enforced similar laws.
But Kavanaugh said the ban on semiautomatic rifles was unconstitutional because the weapons are in common use in this country. “As one who was born here, grew up in this community in the late 1960s, 1970s and 1980s, and has lived and worked in this area almost all of his life, I am acutely aware of the gun, drug and gang violence that has plagued all of us…. But our task is to apply the Constitution and the precedents of the Supreme Court, regardless of whether the result is one we agree with as a matter of first principles or policy,” he wrote.
Maybe. But to the LAT, anything short of full support for outlawing all firearms (except, somehow, the criminals’) looks like a rabid, pro-RKBA radical.
Then there’s this line from the National Review
“Brett Kavanaugh is basically John Roberts 2.0, a product of the Bush Administration and the conservative legal elite,” says Dan McLaughlin of the conservative “National Review.”
Joy. Another “conservative” who, once on the bench, acts as if wholely owned by the Democrats?
On RKBA, Kavanaugh appears to be acceptably constitutionally-minded. On other issues, like taxes, he’s weaker in terms of individual rights. We’ll simply have to wait out the confirmation process (which will be quite a circus; possibly even more so than the usual SCOTUS nomination).
Just remember that Kavanaugh has been nominated by a man who ran on a pro-RKBA platform, then directed the DOJ to regulate/ban inert plastic accessories as machine guns in crazed contrast to reality, opening the door to a “machine gun” ban on virtually every repeating firearm in existence.
If only I could ask questions of Kavanaugh in confirmation hearings.
- Do words have meaning?
- Will your decisions be based on the constitution as written, or as interpreted under the latest fad for imagined fairness in outcomes?
- If one must demonstrate “standing” by being damaged by a law before filing suit against it, must one wait to be shot before exercising self-defense?
- Does due process matter? Does due process still matter in ERPOs”?
That’s a start.
What questions would you like to hear during the confirmation?