Kavanaugh -not convinced gun registration & regulation r bad policy

[tazman]

Is Kavanaugh truly going to be a 2A stallwart for us or not?

Quote:
"So, my view on how to analyze the constitutional question here under the relevant Supreme Court precedents is not to say that I think certain gun registration laws or laws regulating semiautomatic guns are necessarily a bad idea as a matter of policy. If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens and might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind."

And,
"Kavanaugh said the "text, history, and tradition" test is not necessarily the most stringent possible test for gun laws and may actually allow longstanding gun laws to remain in tact where other tests may strike them down."

But he does go on to say, " that fidelity to the Constitution and the highest court in the land are more important than how he feels about any given policy."


Full Article: http://freebeacon.com/issues/brett-kavanaughs-view-second-amendment/

I guess only time will tell...
Walt

 

[Whutmeworry]

...he does go on to say, " that fidelity to the Constitution and the highest court in the land are more important than how he feels about any given policy."

Isn't that what we want, after all??

 

[Chevy 2 65]

Another one who does not understand 4 simple words

 

[strangenh]

I think a prospective judge saying his personal opinions on policy don't outweigh his fidelity to the Constitution is a pretty good sign.

 

[DispositionMatrix]

I guess only time will tell...
Walt

Assuming SCOTUS even takes a future challenge, it's always going to be 50/50 when it comes to firearms. Only fools get excited about allegedly-pro-RKBA judiciary nominees and pols.

 

[drgrant]

It seems he does believe there is a difference between

-A what he thinks is a good idea
and
-B what he thinks is the CORRECT legal posture WRT respecting the constitution and acting as a jurist.

As long as B always takes priority in his mind when performing his job, that's all that really matters.

For example if I thought about it long enough I probably could come up with a handful of limitations that I "personally would like" on the BOR. But if I was a actual justice would I act on those preferences in terms of dictating the decision I made? f*** no- because I know that in doing so, erodes the meaning and the supremacy of the constitution from a legal/rule of law standpoint. also am smart enough to know that real individual freedom always has a COST. And that sometimes we might not LIKE that cost, but in order to have the HUGE benefits of freedom, the usually small/low costs must be absorbed by everyone.

I also believe that the primary role of the supreme court is to act as a check valve against shitty, poorly written laws and government overreach above
everything else, particularly given their relatively passive nature of operation.

-Mike

 

[firestorm]

Another one who does not understand 4 simple words

Understand that he is saying these things as a district court judge, he has no say outside of what the SCOTUS has ruled on something. The test he is talking about and how it might allow more restrictions is due to the heller decision leaving the door open to restrictions and not saying what level of scrutiny should be used. He is basically saying "The test that the heller decision lays out is less protective of the right than strict scrutiny" because the supreme court did not lay out in detail what level of scrutiny is correct, and he is only allowed to rule based on that precedent.

 

[LLF]

Just saw this on The Daily Beast...

“A ban on a class of arms is not an ‘incidental’ regulation,” he (Judge Kavanaugh) wrote in 2011 dissenting opinion as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. “It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.”

The case, known as Heller II, sprang from The District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the U.S. Supreme Court knocked down Washington, D.C.’s blanket ban on handguns in the home.

Gun-rights people sought to extend the ruling to assault weapons. The majority of the Court of Appeals upheld the assault-weapons ban. Kavanaugh was one of two appeals court judges who disagreed.

“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,” he wrote. “There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semiautomatic handguns and semiautomatic rifles.”

This is excerpted from the Daily Beast article, which was very critical of Kavanaugh's views. However, it seems like he is sympathetic to gun owners' rights.

 

[Jktu-B]

Gun-rights people sought to extend the ruling to assault weapons.

I'd thought they sought to eliminate the meaningless term from the legal documents

 

[Mark L]

Policy isn't law. As long as he interprets laws wrt the Constitution, and any regulation resulting from policy, i'm good.

 

[Eli]

he has openly said an assault weapons ban is unconstitutional. He seems to value the constitution how it was written. People are saying he won't rule against roe v wade. I really don't care if it stands

 

[robjax]

maybe he is saying what he needs to say to be confirmed.

 

[firestorm]

maybe he is saying what he needs to say to be confirmed.

None of this is confirmation stuff, least not SCOTUS confirmation stuff, that has yet to begin. The semi-auto rifle stuff and some concerning bits are in the dissent for the Heller II case as far as I understand.

 

[robjax]

None of this is confirmation stuff, least not SCOTUS confirmation stuff, that has yet to begin. The semi-auto rifle stuff and some concerning bits are in the dissent for the Heller II case as far as I understand.

then that is concerning. Other threads and other posts said this guy was totally 2A friendly. Seems that might not be the case.

 

[mibro]

The first paragraph quoted is lawyer speak. It does not mean what it appears to mean on first reading. Focus on this:

"If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens..."

He's saying the opposite to what he appears to be saying. What he's actually saying is it is not the Supreme Court's job to evaluate the merits of policy or to apply their personal judgment, it is the Supreme Court's job to apply The Constitution.

His speech is an Alan Greenspan-esque smoke screen.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

If the supremes really thought their job was to interpret the constitution as written and not determine desired policy, 5/4 splits would be a rare thing.

They pretty much come right out in the recent sales tax case as saying they are deciding what policy is appropriate in the internet age.

 

[Bonesinium]

"So, my view on how to analyze the constitutional question here under the relevant Supreme Court precedents is not to say that I think certain gun registration laws or laws regulating semiautomatic guns are necessarily a bad idea as a matter of policy. If our job were to decree what we think is the best policy, I would carefully consider the issues through that different lens and might well look favorably upon certain regulations of this kind."

Translation: Their job is NOT to impose what they think is good policy, even if they may think something is a good policy.

This is correct and a positive thing.

"Kavanaugh said the "text, history, and tradition" test is not necessarily the most stringent possible test for gun laws and may actually allow longstanding gun laws to remain in tact where other tests may strike them down."

Ahh yes, stare decisis. The legal principle that in many cases basically just says if the government has been violating your rights long enough that it's legal because they've been doing it for so long. It's indeed most definitely NOT the most stringent test. When the opinions and precedent they are relying on are rubbish in the first place all the subsequent rulings will be too.

But he does go on to say, " that fidelity to the Constitution and the highest court in the land are more important than how he feels about any given policy."

Yes to the Constitution, but only yes to the highest court when they follow that same fidelity to the Constitution.

 

[mark1955]

No matter what Kavanaugh says now, When the time comes Kavanaugh will lean Left!

President Donald "Take the Guns first and worry about Due process later" Trump, ( a life long registered democrat until just before he ran for President ) and who just gave us more Gun Control then we have had in thirty years, DID NOT PICK A Second Amendment supporter!

This is all "theatre" we are watching! Trump is a Left Wing Plant, who has gone back on nearly everything he ran on!

 

[firestorm]

No matter what Kavanaugh says now, When the time comes Kavanaugh will lean Left!

President Donald "Take the Guns first and worry about Due process later" Trump, ( a life long registered democrat until just before he ran for President ) and who just gave us more Gun Control then we have had in thirty years, DID NOT PICK A Second Amendment supporter!

This is all "theatre" we are watching! Trump is a Left Wing Plant, who has gone back on nearly everything he ran on!

Wow, had a few huh? Maybe you should look at the judge as an individual rather than the president or his views. Also, perhaps you could outline your assertion that he has given us more gun control than in the last 30 years? I don't want to call you a moron until I see your argument.

 

[mibro]

No matter what Kavanaugh says now, When the time comes Kavanaugh will lean Left!

President Donald "Take the Guns first and worry about Due process later" Trump, ( a life long registered democrat until just before he ran for President ) and who just gave us more Gun Control then we have had in thirty years, DID NOT PICK A Second Amendment supporter!

This is all "theatre" we are watching! Trump is a Left Wing Plant, who has gone back on nearly everything he ran on!

Even if you're correct, and I'm not sure you're 100% wrong, these will still be the good old days after the political pendulum swings back to the left. The USA that was capable of electing true conservatives and putting true constructionists on the Supreme Court is mostly dead. What's left of it is going to die with we old white guys who still remember it.

 

[wahsben]

Another one who does not understand 4 simple words

They understand them but they choose to ignore them since those 4 words give the people as much power as the government and as government employees they don't like or want that.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is a danger K will rule based on desired public policy once he is in and there is no possibility of a higher court overturning his opinions.

 

[wahsben]

Kavanaugh a Mixed Bag on Guns

 

[Squire]

I think he is saying that personally he wants Gin Control but it doesn't matter because of 2A.

A corrollary is that Gin Control by Congress or the States is only Constitutional if it's Amended to allow such legislation.

I think that's a reasonable position to have

 

[Boston4567]

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

There is a danger K will rule based on desired public policy once he is in and there is no possibility of a higher court overturning his opinions.

Quite possible. But I'd look at it through a game theory perspective rather than taking his words at face value. Kavanaugh is a smart, sophisticated guy. He knew he could be on a future SCOTUS shortlist. He knew how many eyes would be on his decisions.

What benefit would he get from saying, in a high-profile written decision, that he might be sympathetic to gun control from a policy perspective? Why include that at all? In my view, it gives him some very clear plausible deniability to get past a potentially hostile Senate confirmation hearing. "Mr. Senator, I was just applying Supreme Court precedent. I can't speak to how I would rule if I were the on the court actually making the precedent... Of course I'll have to think of the children..."

Remember, when he wrote Heller II on the DC Circuit, Obama was in his first term, the Democrats were still in control of the Senate, and the filibuster was still in effect for SCOTUS nominations. It was well within the realm of possibility that President Romney would soon be looking for someone to nominate, and would need to get 60 votes for that person in a Democrat-controlled Senate.

I think it's more likely he made deliberate choices about the way he wrote the decisions, instead of writing the whole truth and nothing but the truth. And I think it's more likely he'd fib about his public policy preferences than lie about his beliefs on constitutional interpretation.

 

[5811]

I think he is saying that personally he wants Gin Control but it doesn't matter because of 2A.

A corrollary is that Gin Control by Congress or the States is only Constitutional if it's Amended to allow such legislation.

I think that's a reasonable position to have

I think they tried gin control earlier in the 21st century. They tried to control whiskey and vodka too. That didn't work out so well. They need to stay the F away from guns too!!!

 

[wahsben]

I think they tried gin control earlier in the 21st century. They tried to control whiskey and vodka too. That didn't work out so well. They need to stay the F away from guns too!!!

The 2A actually bans the govt. from infringing on the RKBA but it's only a piece of paper so what does it matter.

 

[MGnoob]

Imo the judiciary isnt preforming its task correctly, and likely never has.
The executive branch works as intended, unfortunately some(all) president knowlying overstep their authority.
Almost comically our legislative branch is the most functioning of the three.the shitshow gridlocked that it can be is it functioning properly.

Untimately, its the fourth branch of government us (mob rule) filling the other three branches of government with losers is the real problem.

Im not downplaying the importance of this and future SCJ appointments.im just saying were never going to gwt a "white knight"thats going to run in and save and preserve our rights.. though that lense of compromise this is what we're left with....things could be worse,can you imagine if hillary won?

 

[Editor]

I think he is saying that personally he wants Gin Control . . . A [corollary] is that Gin Control by Congress or the States . . .

Gin control was only from 1920 to 1933.