« "I should have just emptied the whole clip but I didn't." | Main | Defense Distributed case settles! »
Judge Kavanaugh on the Second Amendment
Right here. He's good on it, very good. And the other side knows it. He hasn't been nominated for an hour but already....
STATEMENT: Giffords Responds to the Nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court
Washington, DC -- Giffords, ... released the following statements after the announcement of President Trump's nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh...
Former Representative Gabrielle Giffords:
"In nominating Judge Kavanaugh to be the next Supreme Court justice, the Trump Administration is once again showing brazen disregard for the people it claims to protect. Judge Kavanaugh's dangerous views on the Second Amendment are far outside the mainstream of even conservative thought and stand in direct opposition to the values and priorities of the vast majority of Americans. America needs a Supreme Court justice who respects the Second Amendment but who also realizes reasonable regulations that reduce gun violence do not infringe on anyone's constitutional rights. But that's not the kind of justice President Trump nominated today.
.... Should the Senate confirm the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh, we have every indication to believe that he will prioritize an agenda backed by the gun lobby, putting corporate interests before public safety. Make no mistake, the progress we've achieved passing firearm laws that save lives every day will be in serious danger."
followup from Giffords:
In a follow-on case to Heller known as Heller II, Judge Kavanaugh wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that Washington DC's assault weapons ban and registration laws violate the Second Amendment. While two other judges cast deciding votes upholding both laws, Judge Kavanaugh instead sided with the gun lobby's position that every type of firearm that is marketed and sold to enough Americans enjoys absolute constitutional protections, concluding that because assault weapons are in "common use" today and were not historically regulated, they cannot be prohibited under the Second Amendment. Similarly, Judge Kavanaugh determined that because most states do not require registration of firearms, it is unconstitutional to have a mandatory registration law--meaning that under his circular logic, any gun regulation that is not already widespread is constitutionally suspect.
In the same dissent in Heller II, Judge Kavanaugh interpreted the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Heller to require judges to disregard compelling public safety justifications for gun regulations and consider only the text of the Second Amendment and the history and tradition of regulating in a certain area when deciding if a challenged law is constitutional. Under Judge Kavanaugh's interpretation of the Second Amendment, there is an "absence of a role for judicial interest balancing or assessment of costs and benefits of gun regulations." This radical view would allow judges to pick and choose which gun regulations have adequate historical support and invalidate all other laws. For example, Judge Kavanaugh might vote to strike down important gun safety laws that address modern dangers that did not exist at the time of the founding of the United States, like extreme-risk protection order laws that remove guns from the possession of likely mass shooters, and domestic violence restraining order laws that protect victims of domestic abuse (a crime that wasn't even recognized in early American history).
Finally, while Judge Kavanaugh has not issued a major ruling on the issue of public carry of firearms outside the home, he did cast a dissenting procedural vote in Grace v. District of Columbia stating he would leave in place a lower-court ruling striking down DC's concealed carry licensing law pending appellate review. This suggests that Judge Kavanaugh was sympathetic to the view that the District of Columbia's "good reason" requirement for concealed carry permit applicants is unconstitutional, a position that places him well outside the mainstream. Judges have overwhelmingly upheld similar concealed carry requirements, including those in place in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey--and in each case, the U.S. Supreme Court denied review, leaving favorable lower-court decisions upholding strong concealed carry permitting laws in place.
EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY STATEMENT ON PRESIDENT TRUMP'S NOMINATION OF JUDGE BRETT KAVANAUGH TO THE SUPREME COURT
WASHINGTON - Everytown for Gun Safety, the country's largest gun violence prevention organization, released the following statement today....
STATEMENT FROM JOHN FEINBLATT, PRESIDENT OF EVERYTOWN FOR GUN SAFETY:
"President Trump vowed he'd never let the NRA down, and with the Kavanaugh pick, he chose someone whose judicial record demonstrates a dangerous view of the Second Amendment that elevates gun rights above public safety. We oppose this nomination and urge the Senate to vote it down." ...
• Judge Kavanaugh has applied an extreme and dangerous interpretation of the Second Amendment when determining whether a law is constitutional, one that does not take into account a law's impact on public safety.
• Judge Kavanaugh has made clear he would strike down prohibitions on the AR-15 and other assault-style weapons. In 2011, he dissented from a decision upholding Washington, D.C.'s prohibition on assault-style weapons and its requirement to register handguns. The dissent put Judge Kavanaugh at odds not only with the two other Republican-appointed judges on the court hearing the case, but also every other federal and state appeals court to address the issue.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
WE already know that the Framers considered the addition of a Bill of Rights unnecessary because Congress was granted NO authority to legislate on topics included in the Bill of Rights. No written grant, no authority, no implied powers, no attached powers. The 2nd has been recognized as NOT granting any Right, merely enumerating a pre-existing Right (US v Cruikshank, 1875). The 2nd is absolutely a restriction on both federal and state level statutes via the supremacy clause. The argument that Madison wanted something different is bogus since Madison's wishes were repudiated by those who added the BoR to the Constitution. The preamble of the BoR contains sufficient, clear language that the BoR overrides and circumscribes all the powers granted in the original Constitution.
We don't need control of the weapons if we simply control improper use, i.e. murder, injury, etc. Even then murder and other improper use of Arms is properly and Constitutionally a state level crime with ONLY state level authority. The Constitution grants a limited number of federal police powers and those granted do not include murder, etc at the federal level regardless of one's wishes. There are no implied, inherent, or attached police powers. Those who claim otherwise are simply ignorant or liars.
It is time to stop SC "interpretation" since the SC is inferior to the Constitution and only the States and the People are superior.
I have only one thing to say to the Giffords comment...
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
My cup is overflowing with liberal tears. I can't drink fast enough.
WHAT PART OF "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" IS DIFFICULT TO GRASP?
"Judge Kavanaugh instead sided with the gun lobby's position that every type of firearm that is marketed and sold to enough Americans enjoys absolute constitutional protections,"
I still have a problem with the (I presume Miller-originated) "common use" test.
The test should have been that the Constitution must protect those arms that are not in common use by ordinary blokes, but in common use by the forces that a militia would face.
f there is one thing that explains why U.S. Court of Appeals judge, Brett Kavanaugh, is not qualified as a nominee for the United States Supreme Court, it’s his,.. a judge must be “independent,.. straight forward,.. must interpret the Constitution as written,..” and a long-standing adherence to text, attitude. Judge Kavanaugh only sees the Constitution in what he wants to see, his clear reasoning effort. Something that this former Supreme Court clerk should have learned before making judgment on the Second Amendment, is to study the Constitution. I will tell you why he has failed Constitution 101. Embarrassing, yes. It should be.
49 informational reasons why I took a second look at the Second Amendment. One wonders, how could Judge Kavanaugh have missed the obvious, with his long-standing adherence to text, if he would have read the Constitution?
Since others believe and cultivate something I do not see, neither logic or theory I can understand, I have been forced to study and relate my reading of the Second Amendment. In the making of our United States Constitution I have 49 plus reasons that help to explain my understanding of the Second Amendment. -----------------------
The United States Constitution emphasizes it’s intent and unquestionable purpose of the Second Amendment with the words in it’s Preamble to the Constitution, “We the people… provide for the common defence...” ( Merriam-Webster; belonging to, or serving the community).-----------------
The Constitution of the United States was established and formulated as a result of the Articles of Confederation. Article 6, reflects part of that vision, “..nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace,… but every State shall always keep up a well- regulated and disciplined militia,...”----------------------
If, as some may argue, that the Second Amendment’s “militia” meaning, is that every person has a right to keep and bear arms. The only way to describe one’s right as a private individual, is not as a “militia” but as a “person” (“The individual personality of a human being: self.”).-----------------
Articles of Confederation lists eleven (11) references to “person/s.”
“If any person guilty of…
“..and no person shall be capable of...”
“..nor shall any person...”
“..shall be protected in their persons..”
“..nor shall any person holding any office...”
“..granted or surveyed for any person, ..
“..Congress shall name three persons..”
“..list of such persons each party shall..”
“..and the persons whose names shall..”
“..nominate three persons..”
“..provided that no person be allowed to serve..”------------------
“Person” or “persons“” is mentioned in the Constitution 49 times, to explicitly describe, clarify and mandate a Constitutional legal standing as to a “person”, his or her Constitutional rights. (Articles of Confederation 11 times.)-------------------------
Whereas in the Second Amendment, reference to “person” is not to be found. Was there are reason?. The obvious question arises, why did the Framers use the noun “person/s” as liberally as they did throughout the Constitution 49 times and not apply this understanding to explicitly convey same legal standard in defining an individual’s right to bear arms as a “person”? -------------------
“Person” is one as described by Merriam-Webster Dictionary as a “citizen”. “A person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to its protection.”------------------
Merriam Webster “militia”, “a body of citizens organized for military service : a whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.”-----------
In the whole of the U.S. Constitution, “militia” is mentioned 5 times. In these references, there is no mention of person or persons. One reference to “people“ in the Second Amendment. People, meaning not a person but persons, in describing a “militia”. “People” is mentioned a total 9 times. -------------------------
It’s not enough to just say that “person(s)” is mentioned in the United States Constitution 49 times. But to see it for yourself, and the realization was for the concern envisioned by the Framers that every “person” be secure in these rights explicitly spelled out, referenced and understood how these rights were to be applied to that “person”. --------------------
“..No Person shall be a Representative..” (Article 1 Section 2)
“..whole Number of free Persons,..” (Article 1 Section 2)
“..three fifths of all other Persons…” (Article 1 Section 2)
“..No person shall be a Senator…” (Article 1 Section 3)
“..And no Person shall be convicted…” (Article 1 Section 3)
“..no Person holding any Office…” (Article 1 Section 6)
“..Names of the Persons voting for…” (Article 1 Section 7)
“…of Such Persons as any of the States…” (Article 1 Section 9)
“…not exceeding ten dollars for each Person…” (Article 1 Section 9)
“…And no Person holding any…” (Article 1 Section 9)
“…or Person holding an Office of Trust of…“ (Article 2 Section 1)
“…and vote by Ballot for two persons,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…List of all the Persons voted for,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…and if no Person have a Majority,…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…the Person having the greatest Number of Votes…” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…No person except a natural born Citizen or a Citizen,…shall be eligible to the Office of
President” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…Any Person be eligible to that Office….” (Article 2 Section 1)
“…No Person shall be convicted of …” (Article 3 Section 3)
“…except during the Life of the Person attainted….”. (Article 3 Section 3)
“…A Person charged in any State…” (Article 4 Section 2)
“…No Person held to Service…” (Article 4 Section 2)
“…The right of the people to be secure in their persons,…” (Amendment IV)
“…and the persons or things to be seized….” (Amendment IV)
“..No person shall be held to answer…” (Amendment V)
“..nor shall any person be subject for the same offense….” (Amendment V)
“…they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President,…” (Amendment XII)
“…the person voted for as Vice-President,…” (Amendment XII)
“…all persons voted for as President,….” (Amendment XII)
“…all persons voted for as Vice-President…” (Amendment XII)
“…The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, …” (Amendment XII)
“…and if no person have such majority,…” (Amendment XII)
“..the persons having the highest numbers …” (Amendment XII)
“… The person having the greatest number of votes…” (Amendment XII)
“..and if no person have a majority,…” (Amendment XII)
“…But no person constitutionally ineligible to the Office of President…” (Amendment XII)
“…All persons born or naturalized …” (Amendment XIV Section 1)
“… any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,” (Amendment XIV Section1 )
“…nor deny to any person within …” (Amendment XIV Section1)
“…number of persons in each State,….” (Amendment XIV Section 2)
“…No person shall be a Senator or …” (Amendment XIV Section3)
“..and such person shall act accordingly….” (Amendment XX Section3)
“…of the death of any of the persons from…” (Amendment XX Section4)
“…case of the death of any of the persons from…” (Amendment XX Section4)
“…No person shall be elected to the office of the President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“…and no person who has held the office of President,…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“..to which some other person was elected President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“…shall not apply to any person holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
“..prevent any person who may be holding the office of President…” (Amendment XXII Section1)
--------------------------
The President was elected on 13 of these references. Of which 11 are Amendments, conditioning a “person,” unlike the Second Amendment, to the role of the President of the United States.-------------------
Cornell Law School. LII. Statutory construction.
The legislature is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.
Finally, another reason and need for…. “A well regulated militia, ...” exactly, because we fight among ourselves.------------
Just another thought on the subject.------------- New laws are created every day. Now is that time to make a new law to satisfy gun owners.
Their tears taste so sweet.