Kavanaugh: Protecting the Second Amendment for the Next Generation

President Trump with Judge Kavanaugh and family during his Supreme Court nomination

While the media and special interest groups have been in a frenzy since Justice Kennedy announced his retirement, President Trump was finishing the selection process for his next Supreme Court Justice nomination. While none of the finalists had a record of opposing the “Right to Keep and Bear Arms,” Judge Brett Kavanaugh arguably had the strongest record of supporting the Second Amendment, which is a win for gun owners.

President Trump with Judge Kavanaugh and family during his Supreme Court nomination
On Monday, President Trump nominated federal judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court—a win for gun owners and the Second Amendment.

After President Trump’s announcement, Judge Kavanaugh was offered a chance to make a statement. His opening point noted, “A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.” Supporters of the Second Amendment can all breath a collective sigh of relief at this. Regardless of your personal politics, can you imagine the bias against the Second Amendment that a ‘President’ Hillary Clinton would have had when she nominated Justices to the Supreme Court?

The Second Amendment is very clear. Any justice who interprets the law as the founders of the Constitution intended cannot infringe on the Second Amendment or our rights. Judge Kavanaugh’s record speaks volumes about his strict adherence to the Constitution and original intent. For example, Judge Kavanaugh recently wrote a minority dissent regarding a case many dubbed to be Heller II. In this case, Judge Kavanaugh dissented:

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. 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. (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned and may continue to be banned after Heller.)

D.C.’s registration requirement, which is significantly more stringent than any other federal or state gun law in the United States, is likewise unconstitutional. Heller and later McDonald said that regulations on the sale, possession, or use of guns are permissible if they are within the class of traditional, “longstanding” gun regulations in the United States. Registration of all lawfully possessed guns – as distinct from licensing of gun owners or mandatory record-keeping by gun sellers – has not traditionally been required in the United States and even today remains highly unusual. Under Heller’s history, and tradition-based test, D.C.’s registration requirement is therefore unconstitutional.

While having another Supreme Court Justice with a record of upholding the original intent of the Second Amendment would be a win for gun owners, Judge Kavanaugh is far from being confirmed. Several forces, within the media, political circles, special interest groups, and grass roots efforts are rising up to oppose Kavanaugh. If you are a supporter of the Second Amendment, this is an opportunity to make your voice heard and ensure the Senate’s confirmation of a new justice who will protect the Second Amendment for the next generation and beyond.

Have you supported the Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association or any other gun rights groups efforts to get Judge Kavanaugh confirmed to the Supreme Court? Will you? How? Share your answer in the comment section.


The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog. "The Shooter's Log", is to provide information - not opinions - to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decicions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (27)

  1. To all you Kavanaugh supporters, YOU’VE GOT TO BE OUT OF YOUR FREAKING MINDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Apparently y’all did not do your research on this man. He is probably a CIA plant to SCOTUS. Who ever mentioned he should get what is rightfully his. Well you need to locked up in a loony bin. NO ONE has a rightful place in any part of government.

  2. The N R A is not a 2nd Amendment Foundation, by law its is a gun owners organization, it got its balls cut years ago when investigated by IRS, and is one reason it has a connected but Seperate “Legal” branch.
    It can file a Friends of Court, Amicus Brief, in support of individuals and groups defence of gun ownership, legality and Constitutionality, but not solely initiate a Challenge under 2nd.
    Not that many years back N R A’ s Leadership, members and it’s publications sided with governments wanting to outlaw all Black guns, at that time civilian and police carried mainly Colt M-15.
    I quote from its leadership’s views: There is no valid reason for sporting,its round to weak for hunting, target and competition events.
    And contrary to many thoughts, my original Colt M-15 has to be registered and grandfathered in , and must be kept under same condition as full.
    The N R A said it was a reasonable
    Through many years only one Group, 2nd Amendment Foundation has never compromised on Supporting the Origins and Intent of Constitution as a whole and damn well never backed down on 2nD.
    Read Jefferson’s comments on “Laws of the Land, and Legality versus “Spirit of the law”.
    Pure Bull crap propaganda of NATION of Rule of Law” has allowed legality to replace Spirit.
    Contrary to military B’S no one in military has served to protect Constitution or defend US soils in many a decade.
    They have a Commander in Chief only during a Congressional Declaration of War; President gained imminent danger clause, later, but he is a Civilian” until such time.
    Contrary to more B’S one does not have to support 100% the actions of President or any Cabinstes actions or actions of this nation.
    In fact founders called it “A duty” to resist any and all actions instituted by government outside of Constitutional limits.
    Why the he’ll do we have process of impeachment?
    A “Citizen Soldier” before they became warriors, had Right to Refuse any unlawfull Orders, not just of UCMJ but of Constitution.
    Rule of Law, the NAZI and Fascist of Germany Russia and Italy had Rule of Law, and they existed because they had no foundations of Spirit of Law.
    That Spirit began long years before American
    colonials revolted, in Magna Carta for instance that drew upon own past history.
    As an aside Freedom of Religion and Speech were nneeded additions because of abuses by primarily Protestant religious orgs trying to make States a single denomination State.
    Got lots of info and Blue Law facts to show it.

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

Time limit exceeded. Please click the reload button and complete the captcha once again.

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.