https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/06/scotus-contender-brett-kavanaugh-on-gun
"In Heller," Kavanaugh noted, "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 semi-automatic 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, semi-automatic 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."
Although Heller suggested that various "longstanding" gun restrictions would pass constitutional muster, Kavanaugh said, D.C.'s gun registration system does not qualify. "Because the vast majority of states have not traditionally required and even now do not require registration of lawfully possessed guns," he wrote, "D.C.'s registration law—which is the strictest in the Nation and mandates registration of all guns—does not satisfy the history- and tradition-based test set forth in Heller."
Kavanaugh noted, “the Supreme Court held”.
That is not a legal argument for an appelate judge. It might be for a plaintiff or a defendent, but a judge hearing the case. His guard IS NOT Supreme Court precedents, it is the specific law and HIS OWN READING OF THE CONSTITUTION.
Don’t look to “Conservative” Kavenaugh to go overturning any SCOTUS precedents. To him they are as gold as the Constitution. A real Bush family hero.