[The Pack Knight]

I reviewed the amicus brief, and it is quite a piece of work. For some reason, laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms--a fundamental right explicitly protected by the text of the Bill of Rights--are subject only to intermediate scrutiny. The same people argue that laws restricting abortion--an unenumerated "right" the Roe Court discovered among the "emanations and penumbras" of the Bill of Rights--are subject to strict scrutiny and presumptively unconstitutional.

In support of their argument, they deceptively quote Kavanaugh's dissent as a D.C. Circuit judge in Heller II that "After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the Court said in Heller. By contrast, if courts applied strict scrutiny, then presumably very few gun regulations would be upheld."

However, the entire point of Kavanaugh's dissent was to reject the majority's application of intermediate scrutiny as inconsistent with Heller and McDonald. Kavanaugh didn't think either strict or intermediate scrutiny was the correct approach, but "[e]ven if it were appropriate to apply some kind of balancing test or level of scrutiny to D.C.'s ban on semi-automatic rifles, the proper test would be strict scrutiny[.]"

[madison10]

Anything in there about getting jabbed so a person can keep his/her weapons.

[Osage Orange]

https://www.fbicover-up.com/justice-brett-kavanaugh.html....

Look at this....an tell me what you think of Kavanaugh now.....

[TalBlack]

After all, history and tradition show that a variety of gun regulations have co-existed with the Second Amendment right and are consistent with that right, as the Court said in Heller.“

Yeah a variety. But “ No you can’t have a gun!” Isn’t one of them.