Kavanaugh to Feinstein: I Don’t Get to Pick and Choose Supreme Court Precedents I Follow [VIDEO]

Kavanaugh Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing Second Amendment Heller

courtesy youtube.com and Live On-Air News

It won’t surprise you that the doyenne of civilian disarmament, Diane Feinstein, is none too happy about Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent in Heller 2 in which he wrote that the District of Columbia’s “assault weapons” ban and registration requirement are unconstitutional.

As you’d expect, the senior Senator from California asked Judge Kavanaugh about his reasoning — particularly regarding “assault weapons'” common use — in this morning’s confirmation hearing. Kavanaugh noted that . . .

…I had to follow a precedent. A precedent of the Supreme Court. I don’t get to pick and choose which Supreme Court precedents I get to follow. I follow them all.

And so in the Second Amendment context, the Supreme Court, in the Heller decision written by Justice Scalia, held that there was an individual right to keep and bear arms. And then in explaining what that meant, and what exceptions would be allowed to that right, Justice Scalia’s opinion for the Court in part three of that opinion, went through this does not mean that there is no gun regulation permissible.

So that was an important part of the opinion, part three of the Supreme Court’s opinion, where it pre-identified a number of exceptions that would be allowed. Felon in possession laws, concealed carry laws, possession of the mentally ill, possession of guns in schools, possession in certain kinds of buildings, he pre-identified that.

As to the weapons, the way I understood what he said there and what I understood in the McDonald case later, was that dangerous and unusual weapons could be prohibited. And what he referred to specifically is that machine guns could be prohibited.

So it’s very important to recognize that under the Heller decision, machine guns can be prohibited. … The court in Heller, the Supreme Court, upheld or struck down a DC ban on handguns, most of which are semi-automatic.

DiFi then interrupted the nominee to challenge him on his opinion regarding “common use,” asserting that so-called assault weapons are not commonly used in this country. Kavanaugh replied,

Justice Scalia’s opinion used that phrase and the next sentence of the opinion talked about dangerous and unusual weapons and the Court, in Heller itself, the Supreme Court, struck down a DC ban on handguns. Now most handguns are semi-automatic. …

And the question came before us of semi-automatic rifles. And the question was, can you distinguish as a matter of precedent — again this is all about precedent for me, trying to read exactly what the Supreme Court said, and if you read the McDonald case — and I concluded that it could not be distinguished as a matter of law.

Semi-automatic rifles from semi-automatic handguns. And semi-automatic rifles are widely possessed in the United States. There are millions and millions and millions of semi-automatic rifles that are possessed. So that seemed to fit “common use” and not being a dangerous and unusual weapon. That was the basis of my dissent.

So there you have it. Adherence to the Heller precedent, for better or worse.

But then, displaying either jaw-dropping obtuseness, naked disingenuousness, or the onset of dementia (you make the call), DiFi then tried to distinguish between common ownership of semi-automatic rifles and their common use. She said that while semi-autos may be commonly owned and stored by millions of Americans, they aren’t commonly used.

Props to Judge Kavanaugh for maintaining his composure and not laughing in her face at that point. Instead, he calmly pointed out that semi-automatic rifles, in fact, are both widely possessed and widely used in this country and don’t qualify as dangerous or unusual under the Heller opinion.

See the exchange for yourself (it happens at the beginning) in the following video.

comments

  1. avatar pwrserge says:

    Now we just need him confirmed and an AWB case to work its way up through the courts.

    1. avatar New Continental Army says:

      Indeed. If we can break their backs on AWB’s then their cause will be neutered for a decade or more.

      1. avatar pwrserge says:

        Living in Illinoisistan with a state-wide AWB hanging over our heads constantly, I’d really appreciate the court taking black rifles and magazines off of the table. That would leave the crazies little room to maneuver. Next step would be challenging NFA bans under the logic that a state cannot make something illegal that is expressly made legal by the federal government. Next step after that, would be re-legislating the NFA to remove SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, and Suppressors and to open up the MG registry since it was obviously effective for over 50 years.

        1. avatar Jon in CO says:

          Showing how this is absolutely no difference between SBR’s and AR/AK braced pistols I think is a good step to removing them from NFA. However, the other side of that coin could press that they aren’t different, therefore are indeed SBR’s. AOW’s are a waste of time and taxpayer money. Same for SBS’s with the Shockwave/Tac14. If anything, it’s a safety hazard to not have stocks. Less control, more dangerous.

      2. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        “If we can break their backs on AWB’s then their cause will be neutered for a decade or more.”

        Maybe not.

        They may pull a fast one and put semi-autos with detachable magazines on the ’34 NFA.

        And Serge, I’ll consider it a win to get the MG registry re-opened, since the law expressly left the door open for ‘amnesty’ periods…

        1. avatar DDay says:

          They would never do that, that would open up the NFA ’34 for court review and the possibility it gets struck down or neutered.

          There are several AWB cases in the pipeline now, they’ll be up for SCOTUS review in the next year

      3. avatar Stereodude says:

        Temper your celebrations. They will be short lived once the left fully implements corporate gun control. There’s no shortage of left leaning corporations ready to exclude you access to the modern conveniences of society because you’re a dirty gun owner or to exclude retailers of gun and ammo from those modern conveniences.

        1. avatar Excedrine says:

          And that will be their ultimate demise, or at least open them up to some serious damage through competition. New payment processing networks will be built from the ground-up, completely bypassing Visa, Mastercard, AmEx, etc. The market can and will adapt to anything short of full-on communism, and sometimes even then.

      4. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        New Continental Army…… Another argument they will advance that it is a state right to ban firearms used in that state to commit crimes.

  2. avatar Jolly Roger That says:

    Those goalposts are moving like Lambeau Field in a tornado

  3. avatar PeterK says:

    Well that’s what it sounds like when you start from a foregone conclusion. Thanks for that illustrative example, Senator.

  4. avatar L says:

    Can I see what copy of the BoL the gov is reading? Mine says “shall not be infringed”, not “shall not be infringed if in common use.”

    Still a step in the right direction though…

  5. avatar Nanashi says:

    So he DOES believe precedent trumps the supreme law and only semi-auto is protected. Yikes. Nope nope nope nope.

    Someone ask him what he thinks of melt tests or their more direct implementation of bans on blacks own firearms. They’re plenty “traditional”.

    1. avatar arc says:

      Agreed, hes a snake. Doesn’t believe in the fourth amendment, doesn’t believe in the second. Hes a lukewarm traitor.

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Not excited of the nomination,he’s hopefully better than what he is replacing but most likely marginally,not the strict Constitutionalist needed.

      2. avatar John says:

        He is a strong supporter of both and you’re a liberal moron. Thanks for outing yourself.

    2. avatar L says:

      Yes, this scares me too. It’s like he’s citing the actions of others to avoid responsibility for his own actions. Reminds me of a certain political party.

      Despite this though, him taking a seat in SCOTUS is an improvement. So long as the precedents he’s following are on our side.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        An improvement over Kennedy? How?

        The problem is “precedents” are NEVER on our side: Following precedent implies the Constitution is not absolute. We are for the supreme law of the land, not the ruling of a KKK member who died almost 50 years ago.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          “An improvement over Kennedy? How?”

          Huh?

          It was Kennedy’s vote that got us Heller!

        2. avatar L says:

          Kennedy is a swing vote and we can’t rely on him to vote pro-constitution.

        3. avatar Baldwin says:

          Nanashi is right. Historically the overwhelming meaning of “precedent” is infringement. Kavanaugh’s confirmation will not mean a free ride for POTG. But if it pisses Feinstein off…at least he’s doing some things right.

        4. avatar FedUp says:

          As a lower court judge, his job is to let the Supremes determine what the Constitution says, and follow their precedent. Actually doing that puts him miles ahead of his peers who bend over backwards to pull excuses out of their asses for violating the Heller and McDonald precedents.

          As a Supreme Court Justice, his allegiance should be primarily to the Constitution and secondarily to past precedent. What he’ll actually do is another matter.

        5. avatar L says:

          Well said, FedUp.

        6. avatar John says:

          He cited the precedent of McDonald v. City of Chicago that overturned Heller – the DC ban on handguns and reaffirmed an INDIVIDUAL’s RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS as one he agreed was in keeping with the meaning and intent of 2A. .

          JESUS, get the crap out of your ears!

        7. avatar Sam I Am says:

          In “Heller 2” as it went from the DC handgun ban to the DC Court of appeals,, Kavanaugh relied on tradition, not strict scrutiny, when dissenting. Kavanaugh wrote that he would have struck down the ban on semi-automatic rifles…reasoning he saw no difference between handguns and semi-automatic rifles, since cemi-automatic rifles “have not traditionally been banned…and remain in common use.” NOTE: Kavanaugh did not introduce levels of scrutiny in his reasoning, only tradition/history.

          TTAG subscribers: Do I want Kavanaugh confirmed? YES!! But understand what you are really getting. Stop projecting your dreams onto this nominee.

      2. avatar JasonM says:

        He has stated publicly that he believes the lower courts should defer to SCOTUS precedents, but if confirmed he’d defer more to the constitution than to precedents.

        He’s definitely more of a strict constructionist than Kennedy, and even more than Roberts or Alito. But he’s not as good as another Thomas, or even a Gorsuch.

        And don’t forget Ginsburg will turn 87, and Breyer will turn 82, before the next presidential election. So there’s a good possibility Kavanaugh won’t be the junior justice for very long.

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Ruthie should have stepped down while barry was in office. He could have placed a young prog on the court that would have haunted us for years.

          She fell for the propaganda that hillary was the new queen. It’s going to cost them dearly.

          Constitutional carry will be the law of the land within a few years. Then we need to see about tracking down and jailing people like newsom and the rest for human and civil rights violations.

        2. avatar LarryinTX says:

          JWM, you’re forgetting! Hillary was supposed to win! And when Scalia died, Senate leadership said they’d wait til after the election to decide whether to confirm anybody nominated by Osama. She would have had to stand down more than 3 years ago!

    3. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Nanashi, pull your head out of your @$$ for a second.

      Feinstein was asking him about a dissent in a case where he was an APPELLATE court judge. He was explaining that he was doing what APPELLATE court judges are required to do – follow the precedent laid out by SCOTUS.

      Supreme Court Justices, on the other hand, have quite a bit more lattitude.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        The problem here is that said ruling didn’t even follow precedent. Heller said arms in “common use” were protected. Kavanaugh took this to mean “common use by civilians”, not “common use in the world”. He took the position that required a circular argument (they’ve been banned and therefore weren’t in common use so they can be banned) rather than the Constitution.

        1. avatar rosignol says:

          He used the standard that is relevant to American citizens under American law within the borders of American territory, and advantageous to us- firearm ownership is much less common globally than it is in the US. If ‘global firearm norms’ become the standard, we’re screwed.

      2. avatar Stereodude says:

        Curtis: Don’t mind him. He’s a perpetually unhappy sideline dweller. If you offered him half of a pizza that you just bought he’d turn it down because he couldn’t have the whole thing even though he’s starving. Nothing is better than something if you can’t have it all.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          No, I’d be unhappy if Democrats stole my pizza and all the people who supposedly want to “help” me want the Democrats to keep half. Same as any rational person.

          “Sidelines”? Unless you’ve been working with primary candidates to find who actually supports the Constitution and pushing them to introduce legislation, I’ve done more than you.

    4. avatar 4808 N says:

      He’s the nominee. You girls are going to have to except that. Think about who Hillary would have sitting in that hearing room. Why don’t you go on about why you hate Glock pistols to distract yourselves.

    5. avatar John says:

      That’s not what he meant. Kav is a strict Constitutionalist and believer in Original Intent which does not get trumped by precedents of any kind. Are you that stupid to think he would follow precedents like Dredd Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson? Wake the hell up!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        ” Kav is a strict Constitutionalist and believer in Original Intent which does not get trumped by precedents of any kind. ”

        As an appellant judge, Kavanaugh declared that before wrestling with the wording of the constitution (reasonable, intermediate, strict review, etc.) one must first look at precedence and history. He has also written or concurred in court rulings that general warrants (though he does not call them that) are permissible when government has a compelling interest. This is a troubling history, but in all, all the federal courts prefer to find grounds for ruling other than reliance on the constitution, if at all possible.

  6. avatar Mark N. says:

    She has made this same argument before, relying on a single sentence n Heller taken out of context. As far as she is concerned, ARs are “assault weapons”/weapons of war/ and indistinguishable from fully automatic rifles on which they are based. She argues that Scalia identified them as weapons that can be banned based on that sentence, though in context that isn’t what he said. (Heck, for that matters, she still believes that the Second does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms, falling into the “only for militia” purposes ideology.)

    Personally I don’t get it, given the limited number of times such rifles have been used to commit horrendous crimes, certainly in comparison to the shootings committed with handguns. I think this is just a wedge issue because ARs are “scary” and therefore easier to convince [people to ban.

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      Exactly it.

      “Assault weapon bans” are nothing more than an attempt to set a precedent for banning an entire class of firearms. If they can’t get the low hanging fruit of “weapons of war” banned, they can’t ban any others. Because regardless of what they state- the goal is 100% civilian disarmament.

    2. avatar John says:

      Remember, she’s the one who said in a national TV interview that, if she had her way, she would tell, “Mr & Mrs. America to turn them all in?”

  7. avatar Mark says:

    Good god would you fucking die already Diane Fein Frankenstein?

    1. avatar JohnnyL says:

      Agreed !!! When will she just go away…

      1. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

        Just think the swamp level has already receded a bit with McStain’s passing.

    2. avatar Ash says:

      The DNC isn’t supporting Feinstein for re-election because they are pushing for De Leon (ghost gun idiot); so she is feeling the heat. If De Leon is elected, I think he will make us pine for the days of Feinstein … unfortunately.

      1. avatar JohnnyL says:

        De Leon is even worse then her !!

    3. avatar rosignol says:

      It is going to be far more entertaining to watch the ‘reward’ for her decades of service turn out to be the Progressive wing of the Democrats turning on her and calling her the worst word they know: ‘Republican’.

  8. avatar GunnyGene says:

    Maybe DiFi was confused. Y’a know’ “semi-automatic” and “full semi-automatic”. As for her “not commonly used” comment, that truly is laughable. Hysterically laughable. Falling down in a pile of spent brass laughable.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, I was watching that, wondering why he didn’t cite the number of ARs and the number of 5.56 rounds sold in the past 10 years, when she asked for his reasons for stating that they were “in common use”. I don’t know, but I’d guess 10 million guns and several hundred million rounds of ammo. Pretty “common use”, that!

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        Playing word games with leftists takes a bit of study. You can get tangled up in your own prejudices. Such as believing words mean what you want them to mean (which the left is expert at). For instance, thinking Di-Fi is confused about “common use”. For people here, “use” may mean something other than what the left accepts. For people here, “common use” likely means lotsa people have black rifles, and lotsa people use them at the range, and lotsa people use them for hunting. However….

        In the anti-gun lexicon, “common use” means commonly used in crimes, commonly carried daily by gun owners, commonly reported in the media. If a gun type doesn’t get a lot of mainstream coverage, it is not in common use (as are handguns, which are the “common” preference for killing people).

        Playing word games with leftists is not for the unskilled.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          ” If a gun type doesn’t get a lot of mainstream coverage, it is not in common use (as are handguns, which are the “common” preference for killing people).”

          Well, they dug their own grave, then.

          “Evil Black Guns, Weapons of War” are covered non-stop in the mainstream media, hoping to whip up a frenzy of Leftist voters…

  9. avatar grumpster says:

    Sounds like Albert Einstein debating Pee Wee Herman on theoretical physics as far as intellect differences between the two.

    1. avatar No one of consequence says:

      Careful, there … Pee-Wee might just have the edge when it comes to quantum mechanics.

  10. avatar Texican says:

    Reminds me of the t shirt: I can explain it to you but I can’t understand it for you! Kavanaugh probably couldn’t get away with saying it though.

  11. avatar Bill says:

    Why did he not ask her to define what an assault rifle is? Make her say it publicly. He then could have formed an answer to meet whatever her reality is. As it was she was never going to get an answer that she would like, but maybe that was a foregone conclusion.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Because that would force him to admit outright he doesn’t support the second amendment.

      1. avatar 4808 N says:

        Kavanaugh has many pro 2A opinions. Calm down.

        1. avatar Nanashi says:

          Like the one where he went out of his way, with no solicitation, to include a side note, with no relevance to the case at hand, that the most common type of firearm in the world could be banned?

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Sorry, pretty sure he is there to answer questions, not ask them. Maybe he could ask for “clarification” of what an assault rifle is, to get around that. But even without that, she managed to make a complete fool of herself, again.

  12. avatar stateisevil says:

    Relax, the courts won’t do anything to significantly undermine “gun control”. Even after celebrations and “great victories” like Heller, the situation will be unchanged.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      I wouldn’t bet on that. You have to remember that very few cases have reached the high court on the 2A, Miller was about a sawed off shotgun and a $5 tax, with no defense presented, in 1939, and pretty much nothing from then to Heller. Machine guns have never been addressed, for example. Nothing needs to be overturned because nothing has been decided.

  13. avatar Defens says:

    Feinstein asks Kavanaught to reconcile his common use and “unusual and dangerous” weapons statements vs. the “hundreds and hundreds” of school shootings.

    Seems pretty clear to me, semi-autos are the preferred weapon for school shootings, and if there are hundreds of those, it seems that semi-autos are obviously in “common use.”

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      Apparently you and I are the only ones who actually watched the hearings. I nearly jumped through the tv when she said, and I paraphrase, that “assault weapons” were used in hundreds of school shootings. Still, too many, and all tragic, but I don’t think assault weapons have ever been used in more than a half dozen or so school shootings. Too bad he didn’t call her out on that blatant, propagandist BS.

  14. avatar former water walker says:

    He looks pretty good TO ME. But I’m not some pie in the sky guy. I echo pwrserge. Some of guys are nuts!

  15. avatar Rich says:

    For Christmas I’m wishing Ruth Ginsberg would admit she died three years ago and retire.

  16. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    “DiFi then interrupted the nominee to challenge him on his opinion regarding “common use,” asserting that so-called assault weapons are not in common use. ”

    If Fineswine extracted her head from the dark dank smelly place she keeps it she may have a clue,otherwise there is delusion,dementia or swilling one too many cool aids

    1. avatar rosignol says:

      …wasn’t there a news report a while back where the Congressional pharmacist let it slip that someone was getting Alzheimer’s meds?

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Not even congressturds are stupid/arrogant enough to get their dementia medications through the public trough.

  17. avatar BLAMMO says:

    Assault weapons are not in common use because, in most states, they don’t exist. But the features that comprise and define assault weapons in the few states are in common use throughout the country and have been for decades.

    Again, assault weapon is just a bullshit, made-up thing.

    1. avatar RVTMav says:

      Yeah NO Kidding right!
      And for her to say, “Semi-auto is NOT in common use” What the F#@& does she know anything about what’s being used and if it’s “Common” or not?
      I’ve got a small sample of rifles and handguns, of which 98% are Semi-auto, which is to say, it is nothing but COMMON USE Shooting My Semi-autos!(^_-)

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Went shooting with family group on private property a year or 2 back, took along a .17 HMR bolt, with scope, just to be different. Just about everybody who tried it attempted to fire a second shot without working the bolt. Even after watching the last person do that. EVERYBODY is used to everything being semi auto.

  18. avatar little horn says:

    god DAMN i hate that fucking woman.

  19. avatar Nanashi says:

    When Kavanaugh said he can’t pick and choose which “precedent” he uses, he’s essentially saying he would follow the rulings of KKK member Hugo Black. That’s quite disturbing.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      Relax, Francis.

      Again, he was referring to his role on the DC Federal Court of Appeals, where he is required to subordinate to SCOTUS decisions.

      Before you go off on his answer, it’s important to know what the question was. Effort on your part may be required.

      1. avatar Nanashi says:

        Yet he went out of his way to establish that machine guns are banned, something Heller left ambiguous, even though it was completely out of the scope of that.

        Even ignoring that problem, what you claim is that his work makes him completely unworthy of a nomination because all we know about him is that he worked as a rubber stamp.

        1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

          MGs are not banned.

          They are regulated under the ’34 NFA.

          An F-35 is banned for the general public to buy at their local aircraft dealer…

  20. avatar Accur81 says:

    So is TTAG back to supporting Trump? The economy and SCOTUS justices, combined with the fact that he wasn’t Hillary are the prime reasons why I voted for him. Also, I gave volunteer and financial support to his campaign.

    1. avatar dlj95118 says:

      …haven’t seen you on the site for a while.

    2. We don’t support or oppose politicians. We report and comment on what they say and do through the prism of the Second Amendment.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      Yeah, I sent him a couple hundred, just so I could say I did. Also because I like what he has to say.

  21. avatar Sam I Am says:

    Please note: Kavanaugh relied heavily on “precedent” to justify his thinking on matters 2A. He not only declared that machine guns may be regulated, but that they “could be prohibited” (may be banned outright.)

    You are not going to see any rulings from Kavanaugh declaring “shall not be infringed”. Not because the wording of the Second Amendment is unclear, but “precedent” has altered the Second Amendment (without the necessity of formal amendment procedure) historically (and Kavanaugh’s prime theory of review is that the history of rulings should be followed prior to even getting to levels of scrutiny). In short, Kavanaugh would freeze the Second Amendment with infringements now ruled by the SC to be reasonable (with potential for even more “reasonable” to be applied via legislative processes.

    1. avatar Curtis in IL says:

      I do not share your concern. He was merely explaining his interpretation of Scalia’s opinion, which led him to a certain conclusion as an APPELLATE judge.

      Fact is, there are hundreds of laws on the books around the country that are clear violations of the 2A as interpreted by Heller/Scalia, especially in view of Scalia’s “in common use” language. Assault weapons bans, magazine bans, not to mention New Jersey’s asinine prohibition of hollow point bullets and “may issue” permit schemes. All of these laws are blatantly unconstitutional on their face when using the Heller opinion litmus test. Kavanaugh very well could help them fall like so many dominoes.

      1. avatar Sam I Am says:

        As an appellate judge, Kavanaugh explained his theory of “history” as the preferred means to determine a constitutional rights case. He stated that if history could answer the constitutional question (the history of prior rulings), then there was/is no need to get into intermediate/strict scrutiny complications. His theory is not restricted to “gun rights”, but is the operating principle he used as an appellant judge. One cannot rationally suppose he will alter his judicial modus operandi as a Supreme Court judge.

        Don’t set yourself up for disappointment.

      2. avatar Nanashi says:

        Even if we pretend his oath to God to protect the Constituion is overwritten by being an appellate judge, why is he nominated to the Supreme Court if his career can’t give any insight into his views?

  22. avatar Curtis in IL says:

    The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

    Kavanaugh has thrown the left wing nutjobs into an absolutely apoplectic temper tantrum.

    Judge Kavanaugh is my friend.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      Reality throws left wing nutjobs into an absolutely apoplectic temper tantrum. I don’t consider that an endorsement anymore.

  23. avatar CZJay says:

    He doesn’t seem trustworthy. He does seem predictable.

  24. avatar 2aguy says:

    Scalia clarified his statement about in common use in his dissent in Friedman v Highland Park….where he specifically names the AR-15 rifle as being protected

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf

    That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense. Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625. The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.

    Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      All talk about common use is bogus on its face; a complete and effective diversion. The Second Amendment was about forbidding the central government to remove weapons of war from the people/public. It declared that the central government had no power to define those weapons which the people may possess, because the people having weapons of war was the deterrent to the central government using a standing army to suppress the population. Even if one wants to grant “shall not be infringed” is restricted to defense of the state against other states, or indigenous peoples, the people had a right to weapons of war to execute even just those two contingencies.

      When the idea that the Second Amendment is constrained to a non-constitutional concept such as “common use”, the immediate question must be, “Common use for what purpose?” Anything defined as less than the firepower to hold the government at bay is spurious.

      1. avatar Geoff "Mess with the Bull, get the Horns" PR says:

        I have hope we will have a SCOTUS decision soon that states the 2A requires strict scrutiny.

        Thomas is getting pissed off intermediate scrutiny is being abused to enact unconstitutional gun control.

        I have cautious optimism we will get good things in our 2A X-mass stockings in perhaps 2 years…

  25. avatar Rusty Chains says:

    I find it amusing that the Democrats whine about the answers they don’t get. They themselves are the reason that no one since Bork answers these questions. Once again the Democrats have hung themselves out to dry. I believe, on balance, Kavanaugh to be better then the man he replaces; the real fix is to replace one of the Liberals on the court.

  26. avatar GS650G says:

    When DiFi kicks the bucket I’m having a weekend party. Full stop.

  27. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    Relying on the courts to overturn the NFA is never going to happen. The gun Community failed miserably when they couldn’t even defend the Bump Stock. The NFA is here to stay regardless of what a judge Kavanaugh says, because the “gun community” wants the NFA.

    It’s an economic class issue. A lot of people simply don’t like poor people having a rapid-fire weapon ie. the Bump Stock. Most people believe only the rich should have machine guns.

  28. avatar Mort says:

    Seems to me that somebody needs to take Methuselah shooting.

    “I think we’re on totally different wavelengths… I’m talking about common use… and assault weapons are not in common use….” “You’re saying the Numbers determine common use? …common use is an activity…so what you said is that these weapons are commonly used– they’re not!”

    Millions and millions and millions….

    By my independent count, there are about 50 million “assault rifles” out there, if we (play DA and) concede that this means a self-loading rifle that uses a military cartridge (once or currently used on the battlefield) of some variety. Out of say, 110 million rifles. Give or take, oh… ten million here or there… which is enough in and of itself to be “common use.” In fact– “assault rifles” and “assault weapons” are so obviously common in this country, we can’t even accurately count them!

    You wanna know what is NOT commonly used? Methuselah’s brand of logic.

    Whaaaaatever, DiFi… we know, if ya could ban ’em, ya would. Good luck with that.

    1. avatar TrueBornSonofLiberty says:

      I’ll just make two points. In agreement…. the overall number of firearms in the US is grossly underestimated. IMO, we are closer to a half a billion than even 400 million. And lastly, I vehemently disagree that DIFI’s “thinking/rationale” isn’t in common use. Sadly, it is the prevailing thinking amongst the 60-70 million leftist terrorists that vote democrat.

  29. avatar Kyle in Upstate NY says:

    That “assault weapon” is a completely bogus, made-up term should be enough to render any such bans unconstitutional. And almost all guns are military in some capacity.

  30. avatar HP says:

    That there are people grumbling and complaining about Kavanaugh not being a true second amendment supporter shows how detached from reality some of you are. Imagine for a second if he had sat down in front of Feinstein and said “I support the second amendment fully, and think that all infringements are unconstitutional, and there should be no interference from the government at all. Yes, this means people should be able to own full auto guns.” That would likely put a large smile on the face of Feinstein, because Kavanaugh would have effectively made himself unconfirmable. Would he be wrong? No. But he also wouldn’t be a Supreme Court Justice, either.

    Yet there are still ragers on this blog and elsewhere would won’t accept anything other than professional suicide, because “principles”, ya know? Fools. Some of you are as bad as liberals. Wake up. Live in the real world, not the idyllic vision in your heads.

    1. avatar Sam I Am says:

      “Yet there are still ragers on this blog and elsewhere would won’t accept anything other than professional suicide, because “principles”, ya know?”

      I DO live in realsville. We are where we are because “principles, ya know?” were difficult unappealing to the electorate. Incrementalism is “killing” us.

      BTW, why is it unfair, unacceptable to expect judges and legislators to vigorously defend first principles? Think it would upset the already blithering idiots on the left?

      Do I want Kavanaugh’s appointment to fail because he doesn’t meet some gun purity test? Hell no ! We just need to be realistic about the real world. Principles are malleable, negotiable, ephemeral, silly putty in the hands of politicians (among which federal judges must be counted), and are mere bargaining chip. We would be foolish to believe that even 9 provably conservative SC judges would revert the nation to “shall not be infringed”, or anywhere near it.

      1. avatar HP says:

        Really I think we agree on many things, we’re just approaching it differently here.

        That said, our rights were stripped through incrementalism. We will only get them back through incrementalism. That’s the point I’m making. The back and forth is like a game of chess. The self proclaimed “purists” who post on guns blogs are the equivalent of a person who has flipped the chess board over and said “I don’t wanna play anymore”. But the problem is short of a hard reset via an EOTWAWKI situation, the only option is to play chess.

        I see a lot of righteous anger on gun blogs, but it’s just screaming into a hurricane. “Kavanaugh has said he will follow precedent. NOPE. He’s no good.” It’s a lot of the same hot air from the people who smugly type away “Well, I only support GOA because they ‘don’t compromise'”. It doesn’t matter if these people are morally or constitutionally correct. Reality doesn’t work they way they want it to.

        1. avatar Sam I Am says:

          The leftists/statists/totalitarians/Dimowits use Trumpian negotiating tactics quite cleverly: always start at the extreme, then relent only when you have terrified the oppo into giving you way more than they keep. Conservatives always play the losing game because being truculent is considered bad form; play for incremental or no gain, while maybe not losing too much. We continue to lose because we wait for the next attack

  31. avatar Nanashi says:

    And now Kavanaugh has told Jeff Flake that *for a Supreme Court Justice* precedent contradicting the Constitution should only be ignored if it’s “grievously” or “deeply” wrong and only if it has had a negative impact on the world. He has basically just confirmed he wants to legislate from the bench.

    “B… but he’s an appeals court judge” my ass.

    1. avatar Nanashi says:

      If you want video of it, got to 28:20
      https://youtu.be/f2hAX1rzd6o?t=28m20s

      1. avatar John says:

        No, we don’t jump to one portion of a video to get an idea of what was said. Either you watch the whole thing or none of it.

  32. avatar Patrick Mattison says:

    The Kavanaugh hearings are nothing more than “political obfuscation of balanced judgement” to the public to justify the obstruction of an extremely qualified jurist for political control by the minority.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email