Gun control advocates are hyperventilating over Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination

The Hill ^ | July 16, 2018 | John R Lott Jr

[richardb72]

Gun control advocates are hyperventilating over President Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun rights group, Everytown for Gun Safety, warned: “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.”

Since the Supreme Court’s last gun control case in 2010, the court has turned away at least 15 gun-rights cases, including several challenges to prohibitions on semi-automatic assault rifles and on public carry of firearms. Gun control advocates hoped that the Supreme Court would overturn unfavorable lower court decisions. Some believe that Justice Anthony Kennedy stopped the court from taking these cases, but it could just as easily have been Chief Justice John Roberts, who places considerable weight on building consensus and is willing to put off dealing with contentious issues. Rarely is any information released on who voted to hear these appeals.

Gun control advocates are most upset by a 2011 dissent in which Kavanaugh voted to strike down Washington, D.C.’s ban on most semi-automatic rifles. Two other judges voted to uphold the ban, so Kavanaugh lost the vote.

But it's easy to read too much into any one case, especially when a judge is simply following precedent set by the Supreme Court — in this case, precedent from the 2008 Heller decision that struck down D.C.’s handgun ban. "As a lower court, however, it is not our role to re-litigate Heller or to bend it in any particular direction,” Kavanaugh wrote. "Our sole job is to faithfully apply Heller and the approach it set forth for analyzing gun bans and regulations.”.....

[rktman]

Are they blue in the face yet? I know where there are some “DNR” tags just layin’ around.

[vette6387]

“...but it could just as easily have been Chief Justice John Roberts, who places considerable weight on building consensus AND IS WILLING TO PUT OF DEALING WITH CONTENTIOUS ISSUES. Rarely is any information released on who voted to hear these appeals.”

It is long past time for this kind of “behavior” of the SCOTUS to end!

[dsc]

If a candidate doesn’t drive the leftards into a slavering, convulsing, howling, puking, chewing-their-own-lips-off, full-blown “Exorcist” seizure, that candidate is not morally fit for office.

[metmom]

Good.

Means he’s a good choice.

[Ancesthntr]

If any nominee has the tyrant-wannabee, gun-control fascists scared and pissed off, then he or she is OK in my book.

REPEAL the 1934 NFA, every last word - for starters!!!

[bgill]

They’re hyperventilating over everything. Please, please, pass out.

[lgjhn23]

Maybe they’ll hyper-ventilate enough to go into cardiac arrest and die.

[Pollster1]

“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.”

There is no room for debate or for a balance when it comes to freedom. "Shall not be infringed" means precisely what it says.

[JimRed]

So are the baby killers.

[Pontiac]

“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.”

Obviously this person doesn’t know the difference between a judge and a legislator

[elbook]

Next appointment will probably give them fatal seizures (Why do these libtards hate America so much? We KNOW why the Leftists they follow do.)

[Forty-Niner]

“...semi-automatic assault rifles....”

There is NO SUCH THING1

[Lurker]

Wake me when someone on SCOTUS mentions Wickard v Filburn in a negative way.

Then I’ll get really excited.

L

[Oil Object Insp]

No kidding. Total over reach on several angles. A unanimous decision for a case that should have never made it out of his field. One of many errors from the USSC.

[Still Thinking]

Yeah, when the interviewer asked Sarah Palin if there were any SCOTT’S cases she disagreed with, I thought she should have said “How many would you like? Marbury, Deed Scott, Wickard, Kelo, Raich. I could go on and on.”