Even before President Trump named federal appellate judge Brett Kavanaugh as his choice to replace Anthony Kennedy on the Supreme Court, Democrats had already begun to paint whatever nominee would eventually receive the presidential nod as an extremist on abortion “rights” and gun control. Kavanaugh is neither. In fact, his dissenting opinion in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller II), proves quite the contrary: On the Second Amendment, Kavanaugh supports “common sense gun control,” while the Left remains out of the mainstream.
The Left, however, will attempt to mislead the public on Kavanaugh’s views, by pointing to Kavanaugh’s conclusion in Heller—that Washington DC’s ban on semi-automatic rifles is unconstitutional—while ignoring his analysis. Kavanaugh’s analysis is key, however, because he not only sought to properly apply Supreme Court precedent (as lower federal judges should), he also detailed a balanced approach to the Second Amendment, consistent with Supreme Court precedent. Here’s how.
Kavanaugh Said Heller Allows Gun Restrictions
Heller II involved the follow-up lawsuit brought by DC resident Anthony Dick Heller following his victory in Heller v. District of Columbia (Heller I). In Heller I, the Supreme Court held the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms and struck DC’s ban on handguns. In Heller II, the plaintiffs challenged the revised gun laws DC adopted in the wake of Heller I. As relevant to Kavanaugh’s dissent, those laws banned the possession of most semi-automatic rifles.