Skip to comments.Kavanaugh: The Right To Keep And Bear An AR-15 Shall Not Be Infringed
Posted on 07/12/2018 1:13:49 PM PDT by Starman417
Its not just the wrongly decided Roe V. Wade decision that liberals fear is in jeopardy with the nomination of Brett Kavanaugh. They also fear their crusade against semi-automatic weapons may be exposed as the semantic, visual, and judicial fraud that it is:
"If you care about common sense gun violence protection, Judge Kavanaugh is your worst nightmare. If you want background checks, a ban on assault weapons, or any of the other common sense measures that we have in Connecticut, or California or New York, Judge Kavanaugh will strike them down." said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Connecticut, who used to clerk on the court. "That's in his record, it's indisputable."President Trump may very well have picked Brett Kavanaugh to be his second nomination to the Supreme Court based on his clear thinking opinion that there is no asterisk next the phrase right to keep and bear arms that says it is okay for that right to be infringed based on a scary appearance or advancements in technology:
"Give him a seat on this court, and you can say good-bye to the common sense measures in Connecticut, California and New York that have helped save lives," he added.
Kavanaugh, who has served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit since 2006, dissented from a 2011 decision in which a three-judge panel upheld the District of Columbia's ban on so-called assault weapons and its requirement that all guns be registered. Kavanaugh disagreed with the majority's use of "intermediate scrutiny," saying an analysis "based on text, history, and tradition" is more consistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.When the Constitution was written the both the government and the people had the same weapon the musket which could be called the semi-automatic weapon of its day. The Second Amendment did not come with an asterisk nor is any of our rights enshrined in the Constitution in any way dependent on technology. Judge Kavanaugh seems to recognize that fact.
The D.C. "assault weapon" ban covers a list of specific models as well as guns that meet certain criteria. A semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine is illegal, for instance, if it has any of six prohibited features, including an adjustable stock, a pistol grip, or a flash suppressor. "The list appears to be haphazard," Kavanaugh noted. "It bans certain semi-automatic rifles but not otherswith no particular explanation or rationale for why some made the list and some did not." In any case, he concluded, the law is inconsistent with the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller.
"In Heller," Kavanaugh noted, "the Supreme Court held that handgunsthe vast majority of which today are semi-automaticare constitutionally protected because they have not traditionally been banned and are in common use by law-abiding citizens. There is no meaningful or persuasive constitutional distinction between semi-automatic handguns and semi-automatic 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. Moreover, semi-automatic handguns are used in connection with violent crimes far more than semi-automatic rifles are. It follows from Heller's protection of semi-automatic handguns that semi-automatic rifles are also constitutionally protected and that D.C.'s ban on them is unconstitutional."
When the Constitution was written the musket was in common use as a personal weapon and was useful as a weapon of war. There was no such distinction when the Second Amendment was written. Supporters of sensible restrictions on gun ownership make the argument that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to bear an M-1 Abrams tank. That is a nonsense argument. Try to buy a functional fully-armed tank, or a nuclear weapon Who will sell you one?
Tanks are designed to be used against other tanks. Guns that fire bullets one at a time such as the AR-15 are useful both in war and peace and are in fact in common use by the civilian population of the United States.
Former Navy SEAL Dean Raso is quoted in The Federalist as describing the AR-15 as in fact the ideal defensive weapon against heavily armed predators:
In the wake of the Orlando terrorist attack, the deadliest strike on U.S. soil since 9/11, Democratic lawmakers and progressive activists have responded by attempting to limit access to firearms particularly the AR-15, which was incorrectly reported as the weapon the terrorist used to kill at least 49 people and injure another 53.Indeed, why would you? As one wag put it, a gun in the hand is betters than a cop on a phone and the response time for a bullet from an AR-15 fired in self-defense is a lot quicker than calling 911. Other non-scary weapons are just as lethal and the AR-15 has been chosen by popular demanded as the defensive weapon of choice, despite a nonsensical ruling by one federal judge:
In a new video, former Navy SEAL Dom Raso explains why the AR-15, the most popular rifle in the country, gives Americans the best chance of surviving in an age of terror.
Choosing to defend ones home with an AR-15 is a commonsense choice, as it is powerful, accurate, and easy to shoot, Raso said.
Gun control legislation doesnt stop terror attacks, he explained, citing the two terrorists who who werent deterred by Californias assault weapons ban when they killed 14 people in San Bernardino last year. Nor would any gun ban have stopped the Boston Bombers when they detonated a bomb at the Boston Marathon, killing three and wounding at least 260 others.
Ironically, both of those incidents of terror were brought to a stop by armed police officers responding to the scene with AR-15sthe same weapon legislators are trying to ban.
Why would you want to ban the gun you pray for police to show up with? Raso asked.
(Excerpt) Read more at Floppingaces.net...
Maybe we can get a positive ruling on national reciprocity.
Laws don’t stop terrorists from committing acts of terror or criminals from carrying out violent crimes.
Shooting them in the face with an AR-15 stops them quite nicely, however.
Would it were true....
The founders were very well aware that the revolution would have failed if the people were unarmed. If they had no weapons, they would have been forced to accept whatever the British thought fit to impose. No weapons means your freedom and liberty depends on those in power who have the guns being tolerant and just.
Yes. Either a clean national interpretation of the 2nd amendment to preempt local and state laws, else legislation, such as from Congress to make DC, as one example, accept CCW from any state. It is the federal district anyway, respect it as such.
Lived in NJ my entire life, this guy is who I want on the court for the RKBA
What do you think the reaction would have been if you had handed a 1000 rounds and an AR15 to the patriots at Lexington and Concord? Probably naw. I got his here single shot smooth bore.
This author was so close yet missed by a mile. The musket was not the semi auto of the day. It was the FULL AUTO of the day. The American people and the government DO NOT have the same weapons today. And There lies the problem. The government aggressively prosecutes you for possessing the same full auto weapons that thousands of non military agents and local police use everyday. They can have short Barrel shotguns and rifles, machine guns, surpressors, flash bang grenades, grenade launchers, yet these are all restricted from the American people. Why do the police and thousands of federal agents need machine guns yet they are prohibited from the people?
Because leftists intend to disarm you, impoverish you, imprison you, and kill you.
They've been stacking up bodies by the millions since 1789 to prove they're serious about it.
My irritation lays in the fact they have them, yet I have to pay for a tax stamp, forfiet search and seizure rules, and bohica for a permit.
“The government aggressively prosecutes you for possessing the same full auto weapons that thousands of non military agents and local police use everyday.”
While the leftists’ god the Fraud gave terrorists full auto weapons and Stinger missiles.
Democrats are having an apoplectic spazz further fueled by Kavanaugh reading the actual words and meaning of our precious Constitution.
It has never been about guns
The Constitution is all about preventing those who would enslave us
These same leftists routinely claim machine guns are only good for spraying billets and killing as many people as possible. What law enforcement function requires spraying bullets and killing as many people as possible? When do we need cops to do that? We also hear full auto weapons are only good for war. Well our communities and neighborhoods are not battlefields.
Every time the gun grabbers wail about what a disaster Kavanaugh will be, I get an erection.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.