He’s written that the 2A is a “fundamental right” deserving the highest level of scrutiny. In other words the same level of protection as the 1st amendment. That goes beyond SCOTUS in Heller who left that unclear to appease Kennedy. Neither Barrett or Kavanaugh have done so.
I was surprised to see the Kethledge case, by the way, and didn’t find it the first time around. I don’t believe it tells us as much as we know about Kavanaugh’s work against an “assault weapons” ban, but restoring the rights of non-violent convicts under some circumstances is very important. Same with Hardiman and his case. Good work by both of them.
Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I’ll take the credit for looking it up and posting the link, though. :-)
So Kethledge has done more than hunting, then. Thanks again.
I want to apologize and correct what I wrote about “heightened scrutiny.” In the case that Hardiman was involved in, the phrase was used in a different context by one of the judges. Strict scrutiny does agree with what you wrote, in that it should be used to test the constitutionality of a gun control statute.
Anyway, Kethledge, Kavanaugh and Hardiman each supported the Second Amendment in a different way in their respective cases, with the cases of Kethledge and Hardiman being related in regards to prohibited persons. Kavanaugh wrote an opinion against an assault weapons ban. Heller was cited in all of the mentioned cases that the three were involved in (along with other citations).
Kavanaugh’s arguments against the assault weapons ban are behind the link. He argued using more than Heller and tried to do what was effectively impossible in that lower court with that majority.
https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/%24file/10-7036-1333156.pdf#page=46
[Excerpt:]
“KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge, dissenting:...In my view, Heller and McDonald leave little doubt that courts are to assess gun bans and regulations based on text, history, and tradition, not by a balancing test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny.”
[Much more behind the link and well worth reading.]
“Scrutiny” alone allowed for “limitations.” Not good in that case, because it wasn’t about people who were prohibited because of criminal histories or mental illness.
Most interestingly, Kavanaugh’s argument about “text, history, and tradition,” being an argument concerning interpreting the Constitution and intents behind it, would be effective in the Supreme Court with a majority of reasonable and objective judges. The previous federal assault weapons ban stayed with us for ten years without being stopped by the Supremes.