President Donald Trump’s new pick for the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, is in for a bruising confirmation battle.
Left-wing members of the Senate and their radical allies are promising to do all they can to block Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) has already taken to calling Kavanaugh names on Twitter.
Brett Kavanaugh is a true Second Amendment radical. He believes assault weapon bans are unconstitutional, a position way out of the judicial mainstream, far to the right of even late Justice Scalia.
— Chris Murphy (@ChrisMurphyCT) July 10, 2018
However the fight could well be worth it for gun rights advocates.
In his district court rulings, Kavanaugh has said that “semi-automatic rifles are constitutionally protected.”
In 2011, D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh used a dissenting opinion to explain that semiautomatic handguns and rifles are “commonly-owned” and therefore constitutionally protected.
His dissent came in Heller v. District of Columbia (2011), which was a suit challenging firearm regulations adopted in D.C. in the aftermath of the seminal District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).
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.