One amazing piece of news is that DC appellate court judge Brett Kavanagh is a front runner for Kennedy's SCOTUS seat.

The irony here is delicious. Kavanagh is Merrick Garland's colleague on the DC circuit Court. When Garland was voting to try and overturn Heller before it made it to SCOTUS, Kavanagh voted against overturning it.
Also, in that same litigation, Kavanagh voted to say that the 2nd amendment protected semi autos, although he was outvoted 2-1 on that decision.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.latimes. ... utType=amp



Gorsuch already voted to overturn a semi auto ban. If they pick Kavanagh we might actually see SCOTUS start striking these down.

One can hope. They need to take on these outright bans enacted at the state level.

Looks like you called it. Hallelujah, and pass the ammunition.

https://youtu.be/arZdeg_fL-I


Not sure how to post this youtube clip correctly, but it sure does express my pleasure with The President's nominee.....

He actually seems like a good choice. He is definitely Rep leaning. But also seems to apply the law from the bits i have read of his past rulings. But he will have a hard time if we dont keep seats this election.


The posts from Dems are pathetic

The President has delivered!

Thank you to all those who supported him, here and nationwide! This is a glorious day indeed!

Kavanaugh has a very pro-2A history. He voted in favor of semi-auto weapons and was out-voted 2-1 in 2011 by anti-gunners in DC in a clarification case following the 2008 Heller ruling.

https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-gun ... 7D20111004


https://www.washingtonpost.com/national ... 5bddd22b4a
by AP.

he is Pro-2A which is awesome. But also has said things that shoud appease liberals such as Roe v Wade shouldnt be overturned.

Sadly this will just be another party vs party thing and have jack shit to do with how he actually rules

Leadcounsel approves of Judge Kavanaugh on the 2nd Amendment issue. He's a very good pick ON THE 2A issue, and to me that's a top priority and also a very good barometric for judicial temperment and a human quality of understanding of the Constitution, laws, history, and guns. He clearly "gets it."


Kavanaugh appears to be a bright shining pro-gun star in the cesspool of moronic anti-gun judges who can't logic their way thru problems or follow the Constitution. I read his dissenting opinion and almost fully agree with is logic and rationale. He's not PERFECT, but he is a lock in protecting the 2nd Amendment for all practical intents.
* He's against registration schemes
* He's in favor of and protects all semi-automatic guns including pistols, shotguns, rifles, (and implicitly their high capacity magazines, given the same logic, although he stated he needed more information and was unable to address that question).
* His assessment of the law is largely aligned with my own and while not as strong of an advocate as I'd like, this opinion would be a strong pro2A one on the Court.
* Note my main issue with Kavanaugh is his stance on fully-automatic. But keep in mind that such a case on fully automatic will not come before the SCOTUS for a century if ever. Even if it did, I doubt any majority would deregulate class 3 weapons. So it's esoteric and moot. It's a pipe dream of wishful thinking, and shouldn't be the test for a SCOTUS judge.

Note that the 2 judge majority here are so hopelessly anti-gun it's shameful. They rely on the usual short sighted and moronic "common use" and technology arguments, which serve only to encourage more bans and whittle away at the 2A. If unethical governments get away with banning something long enough that it's uncommon, then it's magically unconstitutional under this silly assessment.

Here's the 2011 Opinion if anyone cares to read his dissent.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/ ... 333156.pdf

In summary, here's what I see:
* The 2 Judge majority are in favor of registration, type and capacity bans and other ugly restrictions that we all know lead toward bans and confiscation. This is obvious even given their own "common use" arguments - the more you ban, the less common items become!

* Some troubling language by the majority:
"As the District points out, the plaintiffs present hardly any evidence that
semi-automatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten
rounds are well-suited to or preferred for the purpose of selfdefense
or sport"

"Indeed, it is difficult to draw meaningful distinctions between the AR-15 and the M-16. "

"In short, the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to
promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the
densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia. "

----

Kavanaugh's dissent key points - he was outvoted 2 to 1 by the "judges" above.

"In my judgment, both D.C.’s ban on semi-automatic
rifles and its gun registration requirement are unconstitutional
under Heller"

"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. "....

"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.)
1"

[Leadcounsel notes that while I don't agree with his logic/interpretation of the 2A and application of "common use" toward "machine guns" he might just be following the Heller decision and not attempting to disturb it and, further, he at least understands the distinctions which none of the antigun judges apparently understand - which is a huge bonus]

"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.2"

"The Constitution is an enduring document, and its
principles were designed to, and do, apply to modern
conditions and developments. The constitutional principles
do not change (absent amendment), but the relevant principles
must be faithfully applied not only to circumstances as they
existed in 1787, 1791, and 1868, for example, but also to
modern situations that were unknown to the Constitution’s
Framers. To be sure, applying constitutional principles to
novel modern conditions can be difficult and leave close
questions at the margins. But that is hardly unique to the
Second Amendment. It is an essential component of judicial
decision making under our enduring Constitution."

"In Heller, the Supreme Court ruled that D.C.’s
law banning handguns, including semi-automatic handguns,
was unconstitutional. There is no basis in Heller for drawing a constitutional
distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semiautomatic
rifles."

"The Supreme Court’s statement in Staples that semiautomatic
rifles are traditionally and widely accepted as
lawful possessions further demonstrates that such guns are
protected under the Heller history- and tradition-based test.
The government may still ban automatic firearms (that is,
machine guns), which traditionally have been banned. But
the government may not generally ban semi-automatic guns,
whether semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, or handguns."

"In short, the majority opinion cannot persuasively explain
why semi-automatic handguns are constitutionally protected
but semi-automatic rifles are not. In Heller, D.C. argued that
it could ban handguns because individuals could still own
rifles. That argument failed. Here, D.C. contends that it can
ban rifles because individuals can still own handguns. D.C.’s
at-least-you-can-still-possess-other-kinds-of-guns argument is
no more persuasive this time around. Under the Heller
history- and tradition-based test, or the strict scrutiny test, or
even the majority opinion’s own intermediate scrutiny test,
the D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles is unconstitutional."

"The fundamental problem with D.C.’s gun registration
law is that registration of lawfully possessed guns is not
“longstanding.” Registration of all guns lawfully possessed
by citizens in the relevant jurisdiction has not been
traditionally required in the United States and, indeed,
remains highly unusual today."

"Because the vast majority of states have not traditionally
required and even now do not require registration of lawfully
possessed guns, D.C.’s registration law – which is the strictest
in the Nation and mandates registration of all guns – does not
satisfy the history- and tradition-based test set forth in Heller
and later McDonald."

"In any event, the proper test to apply is Heller’s historyand
tradition-based test. Because most of the Nation has
never required – and even now does not require – registration
of all lawfully possessed firearms, D.C.’s strict registration
law is not “longstanding” in the United States. After Heller,
some licensing requirements remain permissible, and some
record-keeping requirements on gun sellers remain
permissible. But D.C.’s registration law violates the Second
Amendment as construed by the Supreme Court."

"As I read the relevant Supreme Court precedents, the
D.C. ban on semi-automatic rifles and the D.C. gun
registration requirement are unconstitutional and may not be
enforced. "

Thanks for the awesome points on why he is a great pro-2a choice

Jay Insthlee is up in arms about the pick and sending out mass-mailings whining about it.
I sent a reply (doubt it will ever be read, but it felt good to say) Told him "Justice Kavanaugh" has a nice ring to it, eh Jay?

Keep in mind, Trump will almost certainly get 1-3 more picks in this term, or certainly in a 2nd term.

We now have a idea of his short list...

He's a guaranteed vote to grant certiorari for an AWB appeal.

Honestly i leanred a TON about our Dem counter parts. So many were up in arms the instant Trump announced him. No based on anything other than Trump being a Republican and his nomination being more or less (R).



I honestly am more scared about the reactions of Dems at this point than the actual nomination. This just proves it really doesnt matter about beliefs but rather whether your are a (R) or a (D) in our country

Thanks for the background info, LC.

Yes, today is a good day to be an American gun owner. My gun rights are going to sleep better tonight.

Ultimately, after Judge K is active, I am a lot more confident in the crap the anti-2A machine in this state is doing to screw us out of our gun rights. The crap they are planning now to neuter our rights will be ultimately be shoved back up their Globalist-Collectivist butts.

Do you hear me, Bob? You aren't an AG, you are a tyrant. No matter what kind of shit you try to strangle us gun owners with, the SC will stuff you, your Leftist legislature, your moron Governor, and your Globalist WA SC justices.