Supreme Court candidates may be down to three
So says Amy Howe, at SCOTUSBLOG. From the 2A standpoint, Thomas Hardiman seems the best. He dissented in Drake v. Filko, which upheld the NJ carry permit requirement, permits being issued on the vague standard of "justifiable need." In dissenting, Hardiman gave some very fine analyses:
"Although the State must show only a "reasonable" fit, New Jersey comes nowhere close to making the required showing. Indeed, New Jersey has presented no evidence as to how or why its interest in preventing misuse or accidental use of handguns is furthered by limiting possession to those who can show a greater need for self-defense than the typical citizen."
"The counterintuitiveness of the idea that limiting handguns to those who have a special need for self-defense reduces misuse or accidental use is borne out by the experience of other States that issue handgun permits on a shall-issue basis, which is what New Jersey's Handgun Permit Law would look like without the justifiable need requirement. For example, Florida has issued 2,525,530 handgun carry licenses since 1987. To date, Florida has revoked only 168 licenses-0.00665%--for crimes involving firearms."
"[A] rationing system that burdens the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right by simply making that right more difficult to exercise cannot be considered reasonably adapted to a governmental interest because it burdens the right too broadly."
The other two candidates are Judge William Pryor and Judge Neil Gorsuch. I can't find anything on the first, and find this opinion written by the second. It doesn't disclose a lot about his 2A views, tho.