This Quote Will Make You Love Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee

17
1003

As you know, anti-gunners are up in arms (metaphorically, of course) about Donald Trump’s nominee for the next Supreme Court justice, and, when you find out more about him, you can see why. Brett Kavanaugh has a record of leaning towards rulings that favor the Constitution (in other words, he has a record of doing the job that he was sworn to do).

And, while this record drives anti-gunners crazy because they are afraid that he’ll squash their dreams of a total gun ban, pro-gun people have a reason to like Kavanaugh for the same reason.

So, to bring a smile to your day, read what AWR Hawkins writes:

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), has made clear in judicial writings that banning a certain “class of arms” is like banning a particular “category of speech.”

He referenced these things in the dissent to Heller v. District of Columbia (2011), a suit challenging firearm regulations adopted in D.C. in the aftermath of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008).

The Los Angeles Times quoted Kavanaugh writing, “A ban on a class of arms is not an incidental regulation. It is equivalent to a ban on a category of speech.”

Kavanaugh’s statement indicates his understanding that the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are of a cloth and possessed by the people on an individual basis. And his use of a First Amendment example to demonstrate the danger of an attack on the Second is a clear indication that he knows that each natural right is to be protected with vigor.

I just love reading quotes like that because it excites me to know that we have the very real possibility of having another justice on the Supreme Court who actually cares about doing his job instead of trying to change the U.S. from the bench (if they wanted to write legislation, they should have run for Congress).

And, if you’re concerned about Trump’s chance of getting Kavanaugh appointed, then read what else Hawkins writes:

[anti-gun California senator dianne] Feinstein did acknowledge that Trump nominated Kavanaugh at time that puts red-state Democrats in a tough place. Senators like Joe Donnelly (D-IN), Joe Manchin (D-WV), Jon Tester (D-MT), and Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) will have to go against their constituents pro-gun positions, as well as their constituents strong Trump support, in order to vote against Kavanaugh.

They will then have to face those same constituents as they run for re-election this November.

If Feinstein admits that this presents a challenge to anti-gunners wanting to block Kavanaugh’s appointment, then that is a good sign because you can basically interpret it as her trying to explain now why they weren’t able to block him from the bench.

I see that as a very good thing.

17 COMMENTS

  1. The communists want to take ALL guns away from the populace . So , that the o,ly ones with guns are the communists and the ones controlling . That way the general population has NO WAY of defending themselves of the tyrants running the government ( democrats ) !

  2. The Supreme Court is to rule on constitutionality of an issue and that means following what the writers of the constitution sought to accomplish. In essence, that means all normal citizens have the freedom and right to be armed. But again, we have a people problem that goes beyond arms. Until we have specific medical knowledge of the human mind, no one has a right to deny arms to any normal person. That does not apply to abnormal human behavior only.

    • So, Jerry, are you saying that YOU Never in your whole life exhibited ‘abnormal’ behavior? You must be a clone of JESUS…no wait a minute. Old Jeeze got pissed enough at times to tear up the temple and whip the shit out of those criminal pharasees at times…So you must be of such morally high ground that you are…’Holier than thou’???

      What’s the definition of abnormal behavior anyway? Are you at least degreed enough in psychology to ascertain a proprietary government AMA diagnosis (currently it’s that one out of every three persons at some time or another maintains clinically diagnosable ‘abnormal’ behavior usually in the form of depression anxiety state of mind from medications or other socially ‘unacceptable’ flawed mood swings or emotional content).
      But this is a slippery slope that’s coated with grease because the government gets to decide the criteria. Like what’s happening now with your vocalized, written, or podcasted speech criticizing (which the 1st/A specifically allows) where the totalitarian G considers it anti-government speech which they very much want made into a crime and prohibited under penalty of arrest, or at least designated a result of mental illness subject to ‘arrest’ and confinement for indefinite ‘evaluation’. It’s already being done.

      So Jerry, my friend, be careful what you wish for, and more careful how you spout off.

      But here’s the breaking news: Mental illness is NOT a fucking crime. It’s an illness. A criminal Act of Harm towards another or depriving them of their property or rights IS a crime. ‘Shall Not Be infringed’ was not followed by {except if you’re of not Normal cognizance}

      • Mahatma, No what Jerry said is there are no such current standards that could be considered legitimate. Hence all these Red Flag laws are illegitimate and violations of Constitutional Rights, such as being able to face your accusers in court etc. etc. etc.

    • What??? Your comment is UNINTELLIGIBLE! Also, please learn that CAPS LOCK is the internet equivalent of shouting!!!

    • Agreed. Most democrats who claim to be Catholic are frauds. Some Republicans who claim to be Catholic are also frauds. I can’t figure out why Bishops do not either tell them to fall in line with The Church’s teachings,
      or excommunicate these fraudulent “Catholics”. Real Catholics do not support abortion, married priests, etc.

  3. I, for one, prefer politicians that do not put religious decree above the law of the land. Although the original colonists that did revolt against the British monarchy spoke in Biblical terms, they put together a country where people of different faiths and denominations could live and work together with controls and laws that made sense for all, not just one faith.
    That is limited government, allowing the governed to be free of other’s faith restrictions – such as not being forced to observe meatless Fridays, or being forced to keep another Sabbath day holy.

    Many of these so-called “blue laws” were made after the “Civil War”, these were allowed because of a shift away from the Constitution and towards majority rule.

  4. You better read his complete dissent on Heller, he is of the opinion that if it’s been on the books for a long time then historically it is the law and doesn’t need changing, he is actually a danger to advancing our 2A rights to what the constitution says, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” it doesn’t say unless the infringement has already been on the books for awhile. WVCDL is against this nomination for this reason.

  5. The second amendment was intended to allow the people to form militias to defend the people against the government. And it was written because we had just defended “the people” from the British government. So we had witnessed the government over reach that we must protect ourselves from!

  6. The second amendment was intended to allow the people to form militias to defend the people against the government. And it was written because we had just defended “the people” from the British government. So we had witnessed the government over reach that we must protect ourselves from!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here