• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Why Brett Kavanaugh Is The Justice Gun Owners Have Been Waiting For

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Why Brett Kavanaugh Is The Justice Gun Owners Have Been Waiting For....
http://thefederalist.com/2018/10/10...ce-gun-owners-waiting/?utm_campaign=ACTENGAGE
Heller ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right of the people to keep and bear arms. McDonald overturned a Chicago public housing ban on firearm ownership and affirmed that the Second Amendment’s promise of “shall not be infringed” applies equally to federal, state, and municipal governments.

This is a must read.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Why read anything 2A related from SCOTUS if they enable/perpetuate any state/federal prior restraint gun laws to remain on the books.

Focus on SCOTUS rulings where the state and its minions are held to account for their 4A violations. The promise of the 2A is "applied" to the states in name only.
 

HP995

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2012
Messages
730
Location
MO, USA
Nice reading material. Hard-won confirmation, amazing what they did to try and stop it. He should be at least OK, hopefully good, for gun rights.

Here's some funny reading from the other side - a Bloomberg emotional piece about carrying Judge K's "assault weapon" from someone who apparently thinks the words "Texas" and "Georgia" are as scary as "Open Carry enthusiasts" and "Guntopia."

I think they may have accidentally come up with a great pro-gun promotion, everyone who donates at least $10 to a campaign to elect pro-gun politicians and judges will have a chance to win a range trip with our new Justice. :p:banana:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...avanaugh-wants-you-to-bear-his-assault-weapon

Everybody don't forget to get your cards marked and turned in on time for the [strike]National IQ Test[/strike], uh, I mean General Election!

Check your state dates; things are moving along pretty fast for mail-in ballots, early voting, etc.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Sorry, why the presumption the court will swing on hearing 2A cases? Let’s see justice Thomas is one and presumption of justice Kavanaugh is two which still doesn’t make a majority to decide whats heard by the court.

While past rulings could be a good indicator of future decisions, these mentalities are the same shock and awe the other side screamed about Kavanaugh on abortion!

Sorry, as the adage goes...Rome wasn’t built in a day...let the land’s highest court’s members get cozy with each other as the newest member begins his sojourn to indelibly leave his derrière print in the leather chair at the bench.
 

WalkingWolf

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2011
Messages
11,930
Location
North Carolina
Sorry, why the presumption the court will swing on hearing 2A cases? Let’s see justice Thomas is one and presumption of justice Kavanaugh is two which still doesn’t make a majority to decide whats heard by the court.

While past rulings could be a good indicator of future decisions, these mentalities are the same shock and awe the other side screamed about Kavanaugh on abortion!

Sorry, as the adage goes...Rome wasn’t built in a day...let the land’s highest court’s members get cozy with each other as the newest member begins his sojourn to indelibly leave his derrière print in the leather chair at the bench.

I will lay odds we will see 2A cases being heard, there are now three solid justices on the court who are staunch Scalia followers(originalists). I believe Alito, and Roberts will go with the three, Kennedy was indeed the broken cog in the court, though I am unsure if Roberts will try to play swing justice. Scalia writings supported OC as the right the 2A was intended, Thomas clearly believes this also. I think the two new justices will also go along this line. IF the gun rights organizations get the balls to push a unlicensed OC case the house of cards will fall. Once that happens the states will race each other to pass constitutional carry CC due to their fear of OC.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
Here ya go. Disturbing reading. http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/judge-kavanaugh-on-the-fourth-amendment/

Judge Kavanaugh on the Fourth Amendment...does not look good.

Did you actually read the entire article? How about this part:

"... perhaps Kavanaugh’s views are better described as Kennedy-esque than Rehnquist-like. Like Kennedy, Kavanaugh seems to take government interests very seriously. At the same time, Kavanaugh’s opinions don’t seem to reflect a broader agenda. Recall Kavanaugh’s Maynard concurrence in particular. Although Kavanaugh was unpersuaded by the panel opinion’s novel theory, he wrote separately to provide an alternative basis for concluding that the GPS installation was a search."
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Did you actually read the entire article? How about this part: ...
Interesting perspective you seem to hold.

In tough Fourth Amendment cases that divide the Supreme Court, a Justice Kavanaugh would likely be on the government’s side. He is wary of novel theories that would expand Fourth Amendment protection. And he often sees the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of reasonableness as giving the government significant latitude.
Anytime a judge is predisposed to side with the government before a case is heard, meaning that that judge needs to be convinced to rule to restrain the government, we should all be concerned.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
9,315
Location
here nc
Let’s quit worrying about Kavanaugh shall we...
quote: [readability changes, line spacing & hyperlinks removed, made by me]

As of October 11, 2018, the United States Senate has confirmed 84 Article III judges nominated by President Trump, including 2 Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, 29 judges for the United States Courts of Appeals, 53 judges for the United States District Courts, and 0 judges for the United States Court of International Trade.

There are currently 57 nominations to Article III courts awaiting Senate action, including 7 for the Courts of Appeals, 48 for the District Courts, and 2 for the Court of International Trade.

There are currently 11 vacancies on the U.S. Courts of Appeals, 108 vacancies on the U.S. District Courts, 2 vacancies on the U.S. Court of International Trade, and 22 announced federal judicial vacancies that will occur before the end of Trump's first term (4 for the Courts of Appeals and 18 for District Courts).

Trump has not made any recess appointments to the federal courts. Unquote. [ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_judges_appointed_by_Donald_Trump ]

84 appointments, 2 SC justices already placed by this administration, with 57 nominations in the wings, and a whopping 144 vacancies yet to be filled by the end of his administration, and ya’ll are worried about Kavanaugh...really!

Put into perspective, DJT’s administration has already affected our country’s judicial perspective for YEARS to come with appointments, to date, of 82 appeals/district jurists who didn’t go through the disgusting and humiliating public oversight kavanaugh endured, yet, these 82 jurists, in toto, solely based on the shear volume of their case load, could do far more judicial damage to this nation’s citizen(s) then 2 newly appointed SC justices with their paltry case load. What affect are 200 + appointees more going to do?

Further, the lower courts are basically ignoring past SC rulings, unless it benefits the lower courts perspective, w/o being held accountable for their actions, so basically it appears the highest court in our land is basically a worthless judicial entity!
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Let’s quit worrying about Kavanaugh shall we...

Further, the lower courts are basically ignoring past SC rulings, unless it benefits the lower courts perspective, w/o being held accoutable[sic] for their actions, so basically it appears the highest court in our land is basically a worthless judicial entity!
Good point.

My statement stands: Anytime a judge is predisposed to side with the government before a case is heard, meaning that that judge needs to be convinced to rule to restrain the government, we should all be concerned.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This is what the standard for the Fourth Amendment; to address reasonableness. Kavanaugh will follow the following precedent.

When addressing the question of probable cause, it has been long settled that the courts are to apply the “totality of the circumstances” test to determine if probable cause exists. The Supreme Court in Ohio v. Robinnette, 519 U.S. 33, 39, 117 S.Ct. 417, 136 L.Ed.2d 347 (1996) ruled, “‘We have long held that the ‘touchstone of the Fourth Amendment is reasonableness.’ Florida v. Jimeno, 500 U.S. 248, 250 (1991). Reasonableness, in turn, is measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances.” The “totality of the circumstances” test has been repeatedly affirmed as shown by Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (“The probable cause standard is incapable of precise definition or quantification into percentages because it deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances.”) and the more recent case District of Columbia v. Wesby, 583 U.S. __, 138 S.Ct. 577, 199 L.Ed.2d 453 (2018) adamantly confirmed the test in two statements.

At S.Ct. page 586, the court stated,
To determine whether an officer had probable cause for an arrest, “we examine the events leading up to the arrest, and then decide ‘whether these historical facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to’ probable cause.” Maryland v. Pringle, 540 U.S. 366, 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, 157 L.Ed.2d 769 (2003) (quoting Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 696, 116 S.Ct. 1657, 134 L.Ed.2d 911 (1996)). Because probable cause “deals with probabilities and depends on the totality of the circumstances,” 540 U.S., at 371, 124 S.Ct. 795, it is “a fluid concept” that is “not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules,” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 232, 103 S.Ct. 2317, 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983). It “requires only a probability or substantial chance of criminal activity, not an actual showing of such activity.” Id., at 243-244, n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2317 (1983). Probable cause “is not a high bar.” Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. __, __, 134 S.Ct. 1090, 1103, 188 L.Ed.2d 46 (2014).
At S. Ct. page 588 the court admonished that the failure to apply the “totality of circumstances” test was error.
First, the panel majority viewed each fact “in isolation, rather than as a factor in the totality of the circumstances.” Pringle, 540 U.S., at 372, n. 2, 124 S.Ct. 795. This was “mistaken in light of our precedents.” Ibid. The “totality of the circumstances” requires courts to consider “the whole picture.” Cortez, supra, at 417, 101 S.Ct. 690 Our precedents recognize that the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts— especially when the parts are viewed in isolation. See United States v. Arvizu, 534 U.S. 266, 277-278, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). Instead of considering the facts as a whole, the panel majority took them one by one. For example, it dismissed the fact that the partygoers “scattered or hid when the police entered the house” because that fact was “not sufficient standing alone to create probable cause.” 765 F.3d, at 23 (emphasis added). Similarly, it found “nothing in the record suggesting that the condition of the house, on its own, should have alerted the [partygoers] that they were unwelcome.” Ibid. (emphasis added). The totality-of-the-circumstances test “precludes this sort of divide-and-conquer analysis.” Arvizu, 534 U.S at 274, 122 S.Ct. 744.
The Wesby court did not affirm the lower court’s decision that probable cause was lacking. Instead, at S.Ct. 589, it used its discretion to correct the error and to reverse the decision after it applied the totality of the circumstances to the facts in the case.

The Fourth Amendment is not going anywhere.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... The Fourth Amendment is not going anywhere.
Of course the 4A is not going anywhere, I do not believe anyone here has stated this. How "strong" the 4A is remains to be seen. Will Kavanaugh be a strong advocate for restraining government acts, or is he a strong advocate for granting the government significant latitude.We will have to wait and see how he rules.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Of course the 4A is not going anywhere, I do not believe anyone here has stated this. How "strong" the 4A is remains to be seen. Will Kavanaugh be a strong advocate for restraining government acts, or is he a strong advocate for granting the government significant latitude.We will have to wait and see how he rules.
You didn't comment on the Wesby case. Wesby case was reversing the lower court's granting of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion was Kavanaugh's opinion. I think Kavanaugh will now start putting the brakes on over reach of the courts.
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
You didn't comment on the Wesby case. Wesby case was reversing the lower court's granting of qualified immunity. The Supreme Court adopted the dissenting opinion. The dissenting opinion was Kavanaugh's opinion. I think Kavanaugh will now start putting the brakes on over reach of the courts.
I am confused.

Syllabus: The District Court concluded that the officerslacked probable cause to arrest the partygoers for unlawful entry andthat two of the officers, petitioners here, were not entitled to qualifiedimmunity. A divided panel of the D. C. Circuit affirmed. ... 2. The officers are entitled to qualified immunity. Pp. 13–19.
Then Opinion, page 15: Under these principles, we readily conclude that theofficers here were entitled to qualified immunity.
Finally, page 19: The officers were thusentitled to summary judgment based on qualified immunity.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,936
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
I misspoke. Wesby case was reversing the lower court's granting of summery judgement for the officers. Kavanaugh's dissenting opinion was the officers were entitled to qualified immunity based on the “totality of the circumstances” test.

Still Kavanaugh did not go beyond court precedent.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
... Still Kavanaugh did not go beyond court precedent.
Therein lies the problem. Kelo is precedent, Terry is precedent. Heck, where are we today with the Heller/McDonald precedents.

The "totality of the circumstances" do not meet the black and white letter of the law. If a cop does not witness a violation of the law, or without a credible allegation of a violation of the law reported to him, that cop must not act. Unfortunately that is not what the USSC has ruled. Inferences, experiences, training, "high crime area", are now used in place of a cop actually witnessing a violation of the law in far too many cases.

As to Kavanaugh:
While the full D.C. Circuit declined to review the stay order, in his concurring opinion Kavanaugh went out of his way to assert that the metadata program was “entirely consistent with the Fourth Amendment.” Even in the absence of full briefing, Kavanaugh concluded that the alleged “critical national security need” for the program “outweighs the impact on privacy.” https://thehill.com/opinion/judicia...-privacy-and-the-fourth-amendment-should-make
Then:
The decision was hailed by conservative privacy advocates. But Kavanaugh dissented against the decision not to rehear the case. He saw no difference between short-term police monitoring and a month-long collection of location data without a warrant.
Then:
Kavanaugh dissented, saying that the action was justified as a reasonable continuation of the stop and frisk and it helped police in showing the robbery suspect to a witness.
Finally:
Kavanaugh’s record of repeatedly deferring to executive power and narrowing Fourth Amendment rights is out of step with advocates of all ideological stripes who value the fundamental importance of individual privacy.
I am not impressed with Kavanaugh's 4A record, nor do I have a warm fuzzy that he will change his views on governmental powers now that he is firmly ensconced on the USSC bench.

I'm waiting and I suspect that Kavanaugh will not impress me on 2A matters that come before him.
 
Top