Trump Picks Pro Second Amendment Judge Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

Judge Brett Kavanaugh
Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Washington, DC – -(Ammoland.com)- President Donald Trump on Monday night nominated Brett Kavanaugh, a federal appeals court judge in Washington, to succeed Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court.

Trump made the announcement at the White House, where he was joined by Kavanaugh and his family. Judge Kavanaugh's opening statement began with him making the point that “a judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law.” It is a very reassuring statement to hear when gun owners greatest fear is to get another activist judge on the high court.

While Kavanaugh's long record of legal opinions and his work in fierce partisan battles are likely to offer Democrats plenty of ammunition for tough questions, gun activists can take comfort. Kavanaugh's recent minority dissent, when the D.C. Circuit panel's majority upheld the District of Columbia’s ban on possession of most semi-automatic rifles and its registration requirement for all guns in D.C, was a positive sign.

Judge Kavanaugh dissented (in Heller v. D.C. (2011)). An excerpt from his dissent:

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 semiautomatic 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, semiautomatic 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.

AmmoLand News readers know we are in for a tough fight. The left and the get-Trump-media will be pulling out all the stops to block another rock-solid originalist judge to the supreme court. Get ready to vote in November and email your Senate representative and tell them to quickly appoint Judge Kavanaugh to the supreme court.



  • 34 thoughts on “Trump Picks Pro Second Amendment Judge Brett Kavanaugh for Supreme Court

    1. @Macofjack, No “living document”. Sounds like you’ve followed Kavanaugh’s rulings. Of the 300 or so case rulings, he dissented on one in favor of 2nd. Amendment (the one that is continuously mentioned, Heller 2). What of the others if any on 2nd. Amendment issues?

    2. 300 case decisions and only one 2nd. Amendment case? One case…that’s not a solid 2nd. Amendment background. He could be on the court for 40 years. He could be a worse double-crosser than Jeff Sessions.

      1. @The other Jim – We need a justice that believes the Constitution is the law of the land and not a living document, like the liberals want. From what I’ve seen that is Kavanaugh. Use your brain not your heart!

        1. The Constitution of the United States is every bit of the definition of a living document if it was not then there could be no amendments ever added to it since its birth!

          You may want to brush up a little using Black’s Law as a guide?

    3. This Kavanaugh was passed over the last time but this time he was selected. It was a hint to me that maybe he wasn’t the best when I found out he worked under Justice Kagan who is granny Ginsburg reincarnated. I’m not sure gun rights have been served with this one, either. Possibly we are being lead down a path of no guns.

    4. The Constitution is a limiting factor on government powers. The liberal view is the Constitution is an ever changing
      tool for government to control its subjects. Government is a subject to always be regarded as something to be limited.
      That is the difference in perspective,what government should be, and how it is used.

      1. Of course the Constitution of the United States is a living document! If it weren’t how else would Congress be able to make amendments to it?

        1. @Gregory Romeu – Amendments are not changes they are additions and were foreseen by the founders! It’s kind of the point to the whole thing.

        2. @Greg R and Mac, The phrase “living document” is not a legal term. It is an undefined political term. That is the source of confusion. We can all have our definitions of the phrase and all be right.
          When a politician, bureaucrat, or judge uses the phrase, you better be double checking what they wrote because they are probably up to something.

      1. Actually, it was boilerplate and they forgot to replace it with the name of the pick. They were going to use the same release no matter who the nominee was.

    5. Kavanaugh wrote,”… (By contrast, fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned …” Another ignorant fuck.
      The Second Amendment recognizes our Civil Right to own all arms, and enshrines a complete and permanent limit on governmental power. The Second Amendment is the ultimate statement of the Founding Fathers intent to preempt the federal government, state governments, county governments, bureaucracies or city governments from enacting any law, ordinance, rule or regulation concerning arms.
      The Founding Fathers expressed their intention to permanently and completely fill the legal field concerning arms by making the proscription against government part of the Constitution. No higher law, and very difficult to change.

      1. @WB, As long as WE, The PEOPLE take it upon ourselves and mai,taon our government officials. If they are corrupt, overstep their boundaries IN ANY WAY or violate thier Oath of Office, the,cotizens should IMMEDIATELY act to have them prosecuted if necessary, fined, hailed and even REMOVED FROM OFFICE, like a pack of piranhas hitting fresh meat! THIS and ONLY this method of civil action will keep all the others IN LINE! Just take a look at how many of your representatives are in office that actually give a crap about you or your issues and comcerns!

        1. @GR, all true, but Kavanaugh will be a S.Ct justice. He will be on the S. Ct. until he dies or retires. There is no prosecuting, fining, or removing from office.
          Any justice that writes, “… fully automatic weapons, also known as machine guns, have traditionally been banned…”. Does not know the law; signals that he is willing to allow Civil Rights to be treated dissimilarly; and is ok with abridging a Civil Right (or all Civil Rights). That can not be good for us.
          FOX commentators keep saying that he is pro-gun, but his words do not say that.

          1. @WB, I do realize this however, somewhere along the line of litigation or even one of his colleagues may just tap him on the shoulder and advise him or correct him of his mistake. Then again, even if the SCOTUS steps over the line the Second Amendment still stands to correct any major “mistakes” they may make because if it comes to that point the SCOTUS would be a moot issue altogether.

      2. there are two parts to the 2ND AMENDMENT, ONE COVERS THE MILITIA, THE OTHER COVERS WE THE PEOPLE.
        and all men between the ages of 18 to 45 are considered MALITA, to be well regulated.
        also to be armed with weapons standard of the day.
        so where it says TO NOT BE INFRINGED, MEANS JUST WHAT IT SAID THEN AND STILL MEANS TODAY.
        the 10 bills of rights enacted was telling the govt those rights were to be PROTECTED,
        also we the people DON’T get our rights from GOVT.
        and it is NOT A LIVING CONSTITUTION.

    6. Another Bush appointee,Look at what other Bush appointees have already fucked Trump.The one in Washington state about ban on immigrants.The one he just picked,didn’t he just make a ruling against gun owners.Maybe someone on here knows. Another Bush appointee in San Diego just fuck him again in the child from parents bullshit thing.Seem like a pattern here.Man I thought Trump was smarter than that.As far as this child being separated from parents SORRY ABOUT YOUR LUCK.Do you hear anything about US Citizens going to jail an being separated from their kids,Hell no,but these Democrats communist does everything for illegals an fuck their own people

      1. Then if they are in YOUR STATE and they,are violating their PATH OFFICE, apply YOUR state constitutional powers to have those individuals indicted and REMOVED from office!

        Remember, AL Capone didn’t get taken down for murder and all the other heinous crimes he committed or was responsible for, he got taken down because of Income Tax Evasion!

        1. The democrats (Liberals) will have bin twisting the constitution for at least the last 50 years.

          Their moto is if it benefits us (The Democrats) we will stand for it. If it benefits anyone else we will stand against it. Talk about a double standard. They have and use it.

    7. THIS IS WHAT WE FOCUS ON! RHIS IS THE MEAT and POTATOS:

      “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.”
      In defending FREEDOM and LIBERTY, you focus on the TACTICAL advantages of the FIGHT!

      No politician or government body is going to GIVE, We the People, ANYTHING! Their common thirst for power over the people in most cases will make, we must dictate to them and tell them what we will have and not have in regards to OUR FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

      We do not live in a dictatorship, but you if you are not ready to put aside your comfy, complacent, ” I have commitments”, little lifestyle and fight the uphill battle to maintain our freedom and liberty, then take your seat in the back and shut the F’ up because you are only adding to the already steeped piles of carp that we have to wade through to defend our nation, our freedom and OUT liberty!

    8. If we had any, ANY, of these “PRo2a” judges I’m always hearing about we wouldn’t be in the abysmal shape we are in. Yeah, right up there with a pro 2A politician.
      They all do what’s good for them or their friends.

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

      This statement alone makes me suspicious that a law can be constitutional just because it has been law for years.

      1. Agreed. I just can’t understand why they refuse to read the constitution as it was written in that time period and follow it. How hard is that.

        1. @Ben – They (the left) see the constitution as a living document. Why you may ask, because they can change it to fit THEIR needs and censor anyone that does not see the world as they do.
          Stupid, yes. Dangerous YES, but then that’s the liberal left, dangerous. And if they tell you they are not, tell them to watch their actions from the election to now, argument over!

        2. Macofjack,
          You are totally right considering laws long on the books can and are unconstitutional. Two examples are the DC and Chicago gun bans, which were later ruled unconstitutional by the SCOTUS.

      2. Agreed! Just because a “law” has been on-the-books, does not make an ANTI-RIGHT law – – law!
        One thing that annoys me is that machine guns have NOT been BANNED. They have been ILLEGALLY RESTRICTED by the ANTI-gunner “laws” or “regulations” of the “atf”.

        1. Which means THAT is the battle for OUR generation to pick up and correct by abolishing the Gun Control Act altogetjer! It has quickly and long since been proven a typical government boondoggle and needs to go away! It has also been proven time and time again that a mentally deranged or drug-induced Democrat with a semi-automatic weapon can cause just as much or more damage with a semi-automatic weapon then with a machine gun as no machine guns have ever been used in any of these mass killings.

          Most people that speak out about the voodoo of machine guns have obviously never fired one or know anything about them. Those of us that have used them understand and realize that it is not the weapon of choice for any typical situation and has its only purpose of combat, fun on a full-auto firing range and collector/investment items.

          It is the ignorance of people that think just because full-auto machine guns have been heavily regulated and not been used in mass killings that they cannot be obtained for such a heinous crime. One only needs to research the unreported thefts of government vehicles, armories and other caches of full automatic weapons that have been stolen from Agents and agencies across the country or even agents leaving them laying around to be grabbed-up by anyone. People also quickly forget the history of the full automatic weapons that have been stolen off of military bases and buried out in the Mojave Desert by militant groups back in the seventies.

          The bottom line is and ALWAYS WILL BE, it’s not the tools used to commit the crime it’s the mentality of the person using the tools committing the crime!

          I am pretty confident the selection for SCOTUS understands this and will be properly questioned on this issue when the time comes.

      3. Saying something over and over again does NOT make it so…

        “When the proper court determines that a legislative act (a law) conflicts with the constitution, it finds that law unconstitutional and declares it void in whole or in part. This is called judicial review. … This means that only governments can violate the nation’s constitution, but there are exceptions.
        Constitutionality – Wikipedia
        https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Constitu…

        If WE, The People do NOTHING to,challenge the, “law”, then we are forces to live by that, “law” in whole by lack of OUR COLLECTIVE EFFORTS and thereby ACCEPT that, “law”…

        It is NOT against the law to own fully automatic weapons, it’s just that we the complacent people have sat on our Collective asses and done nothing to reverse the law in allowing us to own NEWER fully automatic firearms without massive fees regulation and oversight by the very government that is NOT supposed to INFRINGE on our ownership of these firearms!
        Hence:
        “The ability of Governments to overpower and destroy those that are governed is directly proportionate to the amount of effort the governed put into maintaining their government officials.” – Gregory Romeu

        You do nothing, you get nothing!

        1. The “massive fee” on automatics is $200.00 to get the Tax stamp via fedzilla which takes months to get. Easing the asinine regulations of 1968 would make the price of an auto go down due to increased supply. It’s regulation by strangulation and should not happen. If you qualify to buy an auto you shouldn’t have to pay over $10,000 for one.

      4. Exactly! Had a GCA of ’68 et al been challenged, then the law might not be “longstanding.” Just because it’s “longstanding” dosen’t mean it’s constitutional!

      5. What’s more, the statement is innacurate. Fully automatic firearms have not been traditionally banned. The NFA regulated and taxed them, and established a registration scheme beginning in 1934, which is itself bad enough, but it did not prohibit possession. The Gun Owners Protection Act froze registration of new weapons, in effect a defacto ban on weapons made after 1986, if memory serves me. It still did not ban the lawful possession or transfer of already registered arms. Therefore, automatic weapons have never been banned, traditionally or otherwise. The court will, indeed, be shifting back toward a correct, originalist interpretation of the Constitution, but I don’t think it will be shifting as far as we would like.

    Leave a Comment 34 Comments

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