Court Might Maybe Possibly Take Aim At Gun Control Laws With Brett Kavanaugh

Almost no Democrats have interviewed Brett Kavanaugh. They like to fear monger on his nomination, as do their comrades in the media. This is supposed to be one of the “OMG, we’re doomed” type anti-Kavanaugh type articles

With Kavanaugh, Court Could Take Aim at Gun Control Laws

In February, less than a week after a gunman opened fire and killed 17 students and staff in a Parkland, Florida, high school, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas complained that the court was allowing too many gun control laws to go into effect across the nation.

For the past eight years, the high court has avoided major cases addressing the extent to which Congress or state lawmakers can pass laws that restrict firearms — and Thomas and other conservative justices have noted their objections. This time, it was a challenge to a California law that required an average person to wait 10 days after buying a gun to get it.

“The right to keep and bear arms is apparently this Court’s constitutional orphan,” Thomas wrote in a dissent. “And the lower courts seem to have gotten the message.”

But Thomas and the conservative wing of the Supreme Court could take aim at such laws if the Senate confirms President Donald Trump’s pick of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, whose history on the bench suggests he could press the court to jump back into the incendiary national debate over gun control laws.

The court has passed on opportunities since 2010 to hear challenges to laws that ban semi-automatic rifles, limit the number of bullets a magazine can hold, clamp down on who can get a concealed carry permit, institute waiting periods for firearm purchases, and more.

They may or may not decided to hear more cases taking on the gun grabbers. If they do, that could be a good thing for either side, because it would depend on the arguments given by the lawyers as to the Constitutionality of the laws. But, if the rulings go against the gun grabbers, would that be a bad thing? No. Because we have a 2nd Amendment, and most of the laws passed tend to negatively effect the law abiding citizens, not the criminals who use guns.

The issue will be among the controversial topics Kavanaugh is grilled about during confirmation hearings expected in late August or early September, although it could be overshadowed politically by Democratic concerns about health care and access to abortion.

Good luck with this line of questioning. It may play well with the unhinged Democratic Party base, but, it won’t do well with the rest of middle America. Laws that disarm law abiding Americans and ones that support abortion at any time aren’t winners.

(Care2) The Supreme Court could be one vote away from a pivotal change in jurisprudence on gun rights, making advocates on both sides of the gun debate very concerned about who will fill Justice Kennedy’s seat. Those who favor unfettered individual access to firearms are in luck: Trump’s nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, is in their camp.

Should gun-related litigation reach the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh may vote in favor of relaxing restrictions on gun ownership and explicitly affirming the strict individualist interpretation of the Second Amendment: the belief that the original intent of that amendment was to explicitly protect everyone’s individual right to own a gun.

Sounds like law abiding citizens should support Kavanaugh.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

Comments are closed.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5918 access attempts in the last 7 days.