Amy Coney Barrett a Clear 2nd Amendment Backer

Real Clear Politics ^ | September 24, 2020 | John R. Lott, Jr.

[familyop]

I don’t have much time for now but will send a point in each of two or three comments.

Many have been led to believe that Eugene Volokh is of the opinion that an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional, but that appears to be incorrect.

Expert On Gun Regulation Says “Assault Weapons” Bans Are Useless
Competitive Enterprise Institute
Hans Bader
December 19, 2012
https://cei.org/blog/expert-gun-regulation-says-assault-weapons-bans-are-useless
“Although Volokh says that assault weapons bans would be useless, he also says that they would likely be constitutional, since ‘such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don’t substantially burden the constitutional right’ to keep and bear arms.”

[familyop]

From the quotation in your comment #20,...

"In my view, the latter is the better way to approach the problem. It is one thing to say that certain weapons or activities fall outside the scope of the right. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 627 (2008) (explaining that “the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time’” (citation omitted)); Ezell v. City of Chicago, 846 F.3d 888, 892 (7th Cir. 2017) (Ezell II) (“[I]f ... the challenged law regulates activity falling outside the scope of the right as originally understood, then ‘the regulated activity is categorically unprotected, and the law is not subject to further Second Amendment review.’” (citation omitted));..."

...it's odd that the citation was omitted. That probably should have been United States v. Miller.

[familyop]

Here’s a “Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH” against an AR-15 ban.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/DECA496973477C748525791F004D84F9/$file/10-7036-1333156.pdf

Sorry that I don’t have time for more until later.

[familyop]

"Anything 'in common use' would certainly apply to the AR platform, and the associated standard magazines."

We need to see that in a Supreme Court win. There's probably no chance of that without election victories, because more justices like Kavanaugh are needed. Britt Grant would be one, but there are probably others.

As we've seen from the Democrats' fake impeachment attempts, riots, election fraud and other chaos, the right to life may depend on rights stated in the Second Amendment.

[zeugma]

“Although Volokh says that assault weapons bans would be useless, he also says that they would likely be constitutional, since ‘such bans leave law-abiding citizens with ample access to other guns that are equally effective, and therefore don’t substantially burden the constitutional right’ to keep and bear arms.”

The problem with that analysis is that the court has already commented on the 'common use' question. Personally, I'd like to see that expanded. At this point it would be incredibly stupid for someone to try to say that the AR-15 isn't in 'common use', since it is one of the most popular firearms platforms in the country.

Of course, liberal justices would ignore that completely just like they do anything else that they disagree with. Personally, I think Heller I&II were a good start, though we've since seen a decade where the court has refused to take a 2nd Amendment case of note dispite that bad splits in the various circuits across the country.

To get back to the initial topic, I think Barrett would be a good choice on 2nd Amendment cases. I'm not as sure on other targets, but that's mainly because I've not yet found much that goes in either direction on other topics I find of interest.

[zeugma]

Here’s a “Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH” against an AR-15 ban.

I probably read through this when Kavanaugh was being confirmed, but I'll take a look at it later today in any case.