Kavanaugh to Feinstein: AR-15s in ‘Common Use’ Because ‘Widely Possessed’

[ArmedCorgi]

How long have you been a gun owner? Obviously not that long. We been there many times before. They oversell these cocksuckers and they deliver nothing.

Let me stop you right there. I've been a gun owner all my life. You can dispatch with personal insults if that's all you have to offer. You are obviously afraid. How long have you been a gun owner? You never had any confidence in the supreme court anyway so why are you freaking out now?

 

[Mosinitis]

Let me stop you right there. I've been a gun owner all my life. You can dispatch with personal insults if that's all you have to offer. You are obviously afraid. How long have you been a gun owner? You never had any confidence in the supreme court anyway so why are you freaking out now?

I didn't insult you, I asked you a question. You didn't answer it. I have been a gun owner for 35 years.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I didn't insult you, I asked you a question. You didn't answer it. I have been a gun owner for 35 years.

You made an assumption that was insulting.
I'm 37 and had my first gun at the age of 12.

 

[kev74]

If you're waiting for a Supreme Court nominee to give a definitive, concrete answer to any question, you're wasting your time watching the hearings. The confirmation process is so corrupted and bastardized that the nominees are afraid to give a straight answer for fear of it being twisted and used against them. Its to the point that Schumer and Feinstein are arranging photo-op protesters to use in mid-term campaign ads.

For what its worth (not much, I know) I think Kavanaugh is a solid pick. Not perfect, but better than Alito or Robberts. In any case, we're not going to get perfect. Pretty good is the best we can hope for.

 

[Duke]

If he was a demorat would he be getting grilled like this ??

 

[Mosinitis]

If you're waiting for a Supreme Court nominee to give a definitive, concrete answer to any question, you're wasting your time watching the hearings. The confirmation process is so corrupted and bastardized that the nominees are afraid to give a straight answer for fear of it being twisted and used against them. Its to the point that Schumer and Feinstein are arranging photo-op protesters to use in mid-term campaign ads.

For what its worth (not much, I know) I think Kavanaugh is a solid pick. Not perfect, but better than Alito or Robberts. In any case, we're not going to get perfect. Pretty good is the best we can hope for.

How about giving praises and support after they actually deliver something, instead being taken for a ride time after time after time.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

How about giving praises and support after they actually deliver something, instead being taken for a ride time after time after time.

He isn't even confirmed yet and you are treating him like he is.

 

[Mosinitis]

He isn't even confirmed yet and you are treating him like he is.

I am for truth in advertising.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

I am for truth in advertising.

I really do appreciate your skepticism. It's very healthy and good, I just think in this instance, you are jumping to conclusions here. Just take a look at the situation. This hearing has been unlike any other. You have sitting Senators acting like children and an audience full of agitators...our political climate is touch and go. I'm seeing it as him being diplomatic to get the position. I don't take what he says at the hearings as how he would rule in an actual case.

 

[Blimey]

Sounds to me like he would not support a ban on the AR.

 

[Phazer]

I am for truth in advertising.

That's why I'll go by his judicial writing on the issue. At a minimum, he is certainly not anti-2A or anti-gun. He is not anti-semi auto rifles.

I can't tell exactly where he stands on AR-15s. But, it appears he believes that the term "assault weapon" is arbitrary.

 

[BDinPutnam]

You are missing the trees for the bark, never mind the forest.

You may have watched and read interviews and the proceedings, etc but it is clear you haven't read Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II.

What he's telegraphing here is that COSMETIC FEATURES DO NOT MATTER. Manner of operation and function matters and, consistent with Scalia in Heller, semi-automatic rifles have been in common use for more than a century.

We can separately pick apart whether Scalia slammed the door shut on judicially repealing NFA in the Heller decision.

What Kavanaugh essentially said in his decision and subtly pushed through is that you can't ban a type of semiautomatic based on how it looks and (in Heller II) he said you can't ban semiautomatics.

QED.

 

[Mosinitis]

This is why we never get any rulings our way. They are already kissing his ass. STOP IT!!!

 

[Mosinitis]

You are missing the trees for the bark, never mind the forest.

You may have watched and read interviews and the proceedings, etc but it is clear you haven't read Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II.

What he's telegraphing here is that COSMETIC FEATURES DO NOT MATTER. Manner of operation and function matters and, consistent with Scalia in Heller, semi-automatic rifles have been in common use for more than a century.

We can separately pick apart whether Scalia slammed the door shut on judicially repealing NFA in the Heller decision.

What Kavanaugh essentially said in his decision and subtly pushed through is that you can't ban a type of semiautomatic based on how it looks and (in Heller II) he said you can't ban semiautomatics.

QED.

He doesn't need to telegraph about cosmetic features. He can say that and smell like roses.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

He doesn't need to telegraph about cosmetic features. He can say that and smell like roses.

Well, it's obvious he is going to re-institute the Clinton AW ban. Case closed.

 

[Mosinitis]

Well, it's obvious he is going to re-institute the Clinton AW ban. Case closed.

Until he does something besides writing a worthless dissenting opinion he can go and fuck himself. This is how they play us. We get well written worthless dissenting opinions (or poorly written in his case), while the majority on the Supreme Court were sold to us as pro-gun justices. Nice!

 

[kev74]

How about giving praises and support after they actually deliver something, instead being taken for a ride time after time after time.

If you're mistaking my opinion that Kavanaugh is a good pick out of all of those who had been disclosed being considered for the position is premature praise for him, I'll correct you in that it is not. It might be 5 or 10 years after he is confirmed before we get a really good grasp at where he's at. I really don't care what his position is on specific issues. I would hope he (or any other nominee) is capable of reading the Constitution, and deciding if issues brought before the court are constitutional. So far, he is, and has in the past, given the right answers. That's the best we can hope for.

For some perspective, I was in grade school when Scalia was appointed to the court. I was happy with the appointment at the time because my parents were Republicans. While I agreed with Scalia on a lot of issues, I was later disappointed in the power he was willing to give government to circumvent the Bill of Rights, particularly in terms of the 4th Amendment. I still think he was a solid nominee. Conversely, I was initially happy when Robberts was nominated, however he has been in my opinion, the equivalent of a turd in the punch bowl.

 

[kev74]

Until he does something besides writing a worthless dissenting opinion he can go and fuck himself. This is how they play us. We get well written worthless dissenting opinions (or poorly written in his case), while the majority on the Supreme Court were sold to us as pro-gun justices. Nice!

Considering what our congress has dissolved into, how would you like to see these candidates vetted? Its at the point where anyone has given a solid opinion on anything is a disqualifier. So what's the right answer?

 

[BDinPutnam]

Considering what our congress has dissolved into, how would you like to see these candidates vetted? Its at the point where anyone has given a solid opinion on anything is a disqualifier. So what's the right answer?

First of all your other post above is awesome and sums up a lot of my thinking.

On your point here the right answer is that Congress has ceded power to the Executive and Judicial branches for far too long and needs to take it back.

Good luck with that.

The Framers envisioned the Legistlature as the most powerful branch for many reasons. Which is also why they went bicameral in nature of the make up of the Congress.

 

[RDN]

You couldn't even spin it. He doesn't think AR-15 is protected by Heller.

It is simple logic, regarding semi-auto rifles. How is the Ruger Mini-14 (a semi-auto rifle w/ removable magazine) considered safe to own and not an AR. The Mini-14 and an AR-15 firers the same ammo (.223 / 5.56mm) and are equally effective. It is absolutely ridiculous to ban a firearm based on "ergonomic and cosmetic" features.

 

[RBean]

I've got five gun cases in Federal Court on Long Island. I'm counting on him getting confirmed to have any chance of success in these cases. The Sullivan Law has been in effect since 1911 I think. It is so unconstitutional that the defendants can only say it is "long standing" and "well established" claiming it is therefore constitutional. Being long standing does not make a law constitutional i.e. school segregation, poll taxes, Maranda warnings, etc.

Some where I read about Kavanaugh, and don't know if its true, is opposed to the "exclusion rule" in 4th Amendment cases. This is the rule that excludes evidence obtained in an illegal search. My question is, without the exclusion rule, what keeps the cops under control?

I do like the fact that he seems to dislike the "Chevron Doctrine" that says an agency can make and interpret it's own regulations and the Courts have to except them. I've handled FAA violation cases for pilots and faced with the prosecution making up its own rules as it goes along during cases. Hardly what I would call a "fair trial".

Anyway, nobody is perfect. Kavanaugh is a hell of a lot better than anyone Hillary would have picked.

 

[GOPerfect]

As usual, people are showing their ignorance once again.

Seems like there are some here on our wonderful forum that have zero clue how a confirmation hearing works.

Typical.

 

[Mosinitis]

As usual, people are showing their ignorance once again.

Seems like their are some here on our wonderful forum that have zero clue how a confirmation hearing works.

Typical.

Your priority is Team A against Team B, gun rights are not as important. You already made it known.

 

[Mosinitis]

Considering what our congress has dissolved into, how would you like to see these candidates vetted? Its at the point where anyone has given a solid opinion on anything is a disqualifier. So what's the right answer?

The right answer is not to mislead, celebrate or praise until the goods are delivered. The right answer is not to be sucked into Team A against Team B nitwitary as a substitute for actual results.

 

[Grimscale]

If he was a demorat would he be getting grilled like this ??

Yes. Just not by the democrats.
I see this same game being played out whenever a Democratic President has had the honor of nominating someone for the Supreme Court. Only then the grilling was about "do you support the decision in Roe v. Wade" and "Do you believe in one Almighty God".

Each side has their litmus test that would determine if a candidate is 'worthy', and neither side seems to want qualifications such as "do you support the Constitution" or "do you believe in the Rule of Law". It's all about pushing their own personal agendas on the People of this Country.

Both sides need to KNOCK IT OFF and grow the fuck up!

 

[GOPerfect]

Your priority is Team A against Team B, gun rights are not as important. You already made it known.

Said nothing at all about guns or Rights. Just pointed out the FACT that it is apparent, many forum members are clueless how these hearings are run.

 

[livingston]

You are missing the trees for the bark, never mind the forest.

You may have watched and read interviews and the proceedings, etc but it is clear you haven't read Judge Kavanaugh's dissent in Heller II.

What he's telegraphing here is that COSMETIC FEATURES DO NOT MATTER. Manner of operation and function matters and, consistent with Scalia in Heller, semi-automatic rifles have been in common use for more than a century.

We can separately pick apart whether Scalia slammed the door shut on judicially repealing NFA in the Heller decision.

What Kavanaugh essentially said in his decision and subtly pushed through is that you can't ban a type of semiautomatic based on how it looks and (in Heller II) he said you can't ban semiautomatics.

QED.

He spells this out very clear here .

 

[Acer-m14]

he should have slammed it back in her fking ugly face .. there is no such thing as a Assault weapon .. it could be a baseball bat or hammer or ice pick that did the assaulting LOL .. machine guns are in common use with the military IE the Militia thus US too

Ps .. every word he said thou fell on a mind that cant comprehend shit ..

 

[Redshirt]

Another fucking weasel, like all others. Including Scalia.

Oh give me a break. If you’re only going to be happy with a Supreme Court Justice who goes through the nominating process screaming MOLON LABE at senators, somehow gets confirmed, and then sits on the court and rules exactly the way you want all the time, you would probably be better off digging spider holes and starting your insurgency now, because it ain’t never gonna be that way.

 

[Blimey]

I've got five gun cases in Federal Court on Long Island. I'm counting on him getting confirmed to have any chance of success in these cases. The Sullivan Law has been in effect since 1911 I think. It is so unconstitutional that the defendants can only say it is "long standing" and "well established" claiming it is therefore constitutional. Being long standing does not make a law constitutional i.e. school segregation, poll taxes, Maranda warnings, etc.

If it was unjust a hundred years ago it still is now. But, don't courts actually respond in the way you lament? If it's been around 107 years, what are the real chances of it being repealed?